Download this PDF file - Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist

VOLUME 1 (OCTOBER 2011)
Journal of the
Oxford
ISSN: 2047-1076!
!
!
!
!
Centre for
Buddhist
Studies
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
The Oxford Centre for
Buddhist Studies
http://www.ocbs.org/
!
A Recognised Independent
Centre of the University of Oxford!
JOURNAL OF THE OXFORD CENTRE
FOR
BUDDHIST STUDIES
 
October 
Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies
Volume 
October 
: -
Published by the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies
www.ocbs.org
Wolfson College, Linton Road, Oxford,  , United Kingdom
Authors retain copyright of their articles.
Editorial Board
Prof. Richard Gombrich (General Editor): [email protected]
Dr Tse-fu Kuan: [email protected]
Dr Karma Phuntsho: kp@cam.ac.uk
Dr Noa Ronkin: [email protected]
Dr Alex Wynne: [email protected]
All submissions should be sent to: [email protected].
Production team
Operations and Development Manager: Steven Egan
Production Manager: Dr Tomoyuki Kono
Development Consultant: Dr Paola Tinti
Annual subscription rates
Students: 
Individuals: 
Institutions: 
Universities: 
Countries from the following list receive  discount on all the above prices:
Bangladesh, Burma, Laos, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, ailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, all African Countries
For more information on subscriptions, please go to www.ocbs.org/journal.
Contents
Contents

List of Contributors

Editorial. R G

Brahmā’s Invitation: the Ariyapariyesanā-sutta in the Light of its Madhyamaāgama Parallel. A

Ambitions and Negotiations: e Growing Role of Laity in Twentieth
century Chinese Buddhism. E A
A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Devatā Samyutta
.
and Devaputta Samyutta,
collections of early Buddhist discourses on
.
devatās “gods” and devaputras “sons of gods”. C M-

Some Remarks on Buddhaghosa’s use of Sanskrit Grammar: Possible Hints
of an Unknown Pāninian
Commentary in Buddhaghosa’s Grammatical
.
Arguments. A.M. G

e Legend of the Earth Goddess and the Buddha. P L

Ven. Walpola Rahula and the politicisation of the Sinhala Sangha. S
R

A Buddhist ballad from Bangladesh: the Sambhūmitta Pālā. An apocryphal
jātaka from Southeast Asia to an Indian tune. P G. T

An Early Korean Version of the Buddha’s Biography. S V


Book Reviews
Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India by Johannes Bronkhorst. Reviewed by Richard Fynes

e Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal by Anālayo. Reviewed by Richard Gombrich

List of Contributors
Bhikkhu Anālayo specializes in early Buddhist studies. He teaches at the Center
for Buddhist Studies, University of Hamburg, and at the Sri Lanka International
Buddhist Academy, Kandy, and carries out research at Dharma Drum Buddhist
College, Taiwan.
Eyal Aviv is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Religion, the Honors
Program and the Elliot School of Government at the George Washington University. His research area is Buddhist philosophy and intellectual history. His current project focuses on the role Yogācāra philosophy played in early th century
China. [email protected]
Choong Mun-keat studied Buddhism in Malaysia, Taiwan and Sri Lanka, before
obtaining his BA () in Buddhist Studies (Komazawa, Tokyo), MA in Studies
in Religion () and PhD () in Buddhist Studies (Queensland). Currently
he is a Lecturer in Studies in Religion at the University of New England, Australia.
[email protected]
Richard Fynes D.Phil. (Oxon) is a Principal Lecturer in the Faculty of Art, Design and Humanities, De Montfort University, Leicester. He is interested in numismatics and has translated Jain epics poems for Oxford World’s Classics and
the Clay Sanskrit Library. [email protected]
Alastair Gornall is currently finishing his PhD thesis, entitled ‘Buddhism and
Grammar in Twelh-century Sri Lanka’, at the University of Cambridge. His thesis attempts to reassess and illuminate the history of the Buddhist sangha in Sri
Lanka through a close study of Buddhist grammarians and their grammars. Before moving to Cambridge, Alastair completed his BA and MA in the Study of
Religions at the School of Oriental and African Studies. amg@cam.ac.uk
Paisarn Likhitpreechakul is a journalist and human rights activist based in ailand. His main interest is in the relevance of the Buddha’s teachings to modern
society – in particular, the relationships between Buddhism, democracy and human rights. [email protected]
Suren Raghavan is a final year PhD researcher at University of Kent, UK and a
Research Fellow at the OCBS. His research interests are in eravada Buddhism
and democratization. [email protected].

Paola G. Tinti is an independent research scholar. Her research area is eravāda
Buddhism. e dissertation for her Italian degree in Political Science () focussed on the relationship between politics and religion in Sri Lanka. e research for her D.Phil at Oxford () centred on the history and anthropology
of Buddhism in Bangladesh. She is currently updating her work on Bangladeshi
Buddhism, which will be published shortly. [email protected]
Sem Vermeersch is an assistant professor at the Department of Religious Studies,
Seoul National University. His main field of interest is the history of Buddhism in
Korea and the institutional history of Buddhism in East Asia. [email protected]

Editorial
Richard Gombrich
First, welcome to readers. I hope we shall receive reactions to this new journal, so that future volumes are lively, even controversial. Letters for publication
should be sent to me: [email protected]. Setting up book reviews takes time, so that in this volume there are only two of them, but in future I
hope to have more. I would also like to publish reactions to such academic events
as conferences; I devote most of this editorial to a specimen.
e lopsided state of Buddhist studies
As reported in the September Newsletter of the OCBS, I attended the th congress
of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (IABS), held this year in Taiwan on - June. Our hosts were Dharma Drum Buddhist College (President:
Ven. Prof. Hui Min Bhikshu).
To explain my remarks, I have to repeat a few facts which I have already
recorded in the Newsletter. ere were  panels, spread over five and a half
days, and some five hundred papers. Obviously no individual could do more than
sample so many offerings. Moreover, since only those giving papers were listed, I
have to guess the total number of participants. I thus cannot claim comprehensive
knowledge of the proceedings. But I believe I know enough for my observations
to be well grounded in fact.
In brief, I wish to comment on, and deplore, two phenomena. e first is the
eclipse of studies of early Buddhism and of eravāda. e second is the relative
eclipse of what I would call historical studies, at least before the modern period.
I believe the second eclipse to be related to the first. In both cases, I am referring
to quantity and making no judgment about quality, though ultimately I suppose
that a decline in quantity cannot but lead to a decline in quality.

While one expected a conference held in Taiwan to emphasise East Asian,
especially Chinese, Buddhism, the dearth of papers on early Buddhism and on
eravāda was surprising. No panel was devoted either to Pali or to eravāda.
Less than half a dozen papers used Pali sources, and the few papers on eravādin
topics were mostly on culture (e.g., art history, Jātaka performance). Moreover,
while I could not identify every name, I believe that no paper was given by anyone
who currently teaches in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Laos or Kampuchea; nor did any
member of the ai Sangha speak. India too was poorly represented.
I must make it clear that I am absolutely sure that the organizers had no bias
against eravādin topics or scholars; I believe that they more or less took what
they were offered. So how is this startling imbalance is to be explained?
Some have offered me an economic explanation: that scholars from South
and Southeast Asia cannot afford long journeys or attendance at relatively costly
conferences. ere may be some truth in this, and in so far as the explanation
lies in practical issues, I think that those who are running this International Association must rapidly devise means to mitigate the problem. My concerns here,
however, are cultural and intellectual.
Academic life in each of the countries in this region has its own history and its
own problems. But well informed and sympathetic friends have given me their
view that in SE Asia there is a terrible lack of intellectual curiosity about such
matters, even at times amounting to an assumption that Buddhists in those countries have nothing to learn from foreigners, since the local Sangha already knows
all that there is to be known. Comment is hardly needed; but I believe that to a
large extent this attitude reflects inadequate knowledge of English (and other foreign languages): it assuages feelings of inferiority to assume that foreign language
sources could provide neither intellectual nor spiritual benefit, and in particular
no new insight into Buddhism. Will the authorities wake up before eravāda
Buddhism disappears from the academic map of the world?
Much is at stake, for the current situation has already descended into absurdity. If we count those who were not in the programme because they did not
present papers, and the vast number of attendants and assistants, many of them
monks and nuns, there must have been about  people at the congress. e
great majority of them have built their lives, both personal and professional, on
the Buddha – even if some academics would say it is on Buddhist teachings, not
on the Buddha as a person. And yet the Buddha was barely mentioned, indeed
treated almost as unmentionable.


Can one imagine a conference of  papers on Christianity in which no one
talked about Jesus? Or a conference of that size on Islam in which Mohammed
was passed over in silence? So why is the study of Buddhism in this mess? I am
well aware that some people object to taking the Buddha as a historical figure,
claiming that we can know nothing about him for sure because he wrote nothing
down. But what did Jesus or Mohammed write? Yet no one in their senses has
claimed that they did not live and teach, or that we cannot know their ideas.
Of course, we cannot know all the ideas or the whole truth, in any sense, about
any of these great figures who have moved the world. Scholars will argue about
these matters until the end of time, using evidence and reason. So why does this
not apply to the Buddha nowadays?
In my book What the Buddha ought I have tackled these questions head
on. In chapter , “Assessing the Evidence”, I have explained how absurd it is to
claim that because we cannot finally prove anything about the Buddha we do not
“know” anything about him. Not only is this true of all historical knowledge; it
is true of all empirical knowledge, knowledge about the world. When we say that
we know something, what that means is that that is the best hypothesis available.
It is always possible that discovery of new evidence or of a flaw in the reasoning
will falsify that knowledge and replace it by a better hypothesis; but the quest for
knowledge, i.e., for better hypotheses, must forever continue, if intellectual life is
not to die out.
Alas, postmodernism has quite misunderstood this situation. It casts doubt
on whether there is such a thing as objective knowledge. To remind us that much
depends on the point of view can be a useful corrective; but to say that a historical
date, for example, is not an objective fact is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. at the twin towers in Manhattan were destroyed on  September 
is not just a matter of subjective opinion.
To apply this to the Buddha, the fact that a man who had a certain specific set
of ideas lived at a certain specific time is not falsified by the fact that we can (and
should) argue about what exactly those ideas were or when exactly he was born
and died. It is helpful to consider this negative angle, and recall that there are a
huge number of ideas that we can be rather sure that he did not have, and many
years during which we can be sure that he was not alive. So to say that we can
know nothing about him – even whether such a man existed – is ridiculous. And
yet postmodernism has become so fashionable, particularly in North America,
that it has undermined Buddhist historical studies.


Let me amplify this. In the Preface to my book I argue “that we can know far
more about the Buddha than it is fashionable among scholars to admit, and that
his thought has a greater coherence than is usually recognized.” In fact, I argue
that he “was one of the most brilliant and original thinkers of all time.” (p. vii)
Whether one agrees with this valuation is not the point: the point is that he was
undoubtedly original and that his ideas form a coherent system. I summarise
that system in the final chapter, and comment: “…according to the fashionable
[postmodernist] view … Buddhism … is a ball which was set rolling by someone
whose ideas are not known and … can never be known. So the intellectual edifice
which I have described came together by a process of accumulation, rather like
an avalanche.” (p. )
I defy anyone to point to an ideology, philosophy or system of ideas which has
made its mark on human history and culture and cannot be attributed to an individual, however much it may have been modified later. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas,
Hume, Marx – to name just a few of the greatest – all of them, whether right or
wrong, for better or for worse, were creative thinkers, who though indebted to
predecessors put forward coherent visions of the world for which they were individually responsible.
Not to recognise the Buddha as belonging to that company seems to me to be
not just a stupid error. It has at least two effects which I find disastrous for our
field of study. e first, as I say in my book, is that since so much of the evidence
for the Buddha’s thought comes from the Pali Canon (and not from later sources),
the current (comparative) neglect of Pali studies is unfortunate, to say the least.
But this point can be subsumed within an even larger one. If we insist that we
cannot know what the Buddha thought and taught, we have no baseline for the
history of Buddhist ideas. e history of ideas is, surely, to trace influences, which
must go in hand with trying to locate ideas in time and space. In my view there
was far too little history at the congress and too much pure description. It is OK
to be told about the content of a text; but if it is really interesting I can go and read
it myself. What I want to know from the scholar who has studied it is where it can
be placed in a chain of development, and (if possible) why. at includes, inter
alia, discussing where the author has misrepresented inherited material, whether
intentionally or not; where he has himself been misrepresented by later authors;
and where, if anywhere, he has dared to be original.
e Buddha pointed out that all things in this world undergo change: that
history is a process, or rather a set of processes, neither entirely determined nor


entirely random. I would like the study of Buddhism to focus more on this insight,
and also to remember that by definition our subject must begin with the Buddha
himself.
Two Notes to Readers
Our editorial policy is set out on the web site www.ocbs.org. I need to add something. Our normal word limit for articles is ten thousand words, though we would
be prepared to consider publishing a longer piece in two parts. We are also, however, glad to publish new primary sources – of which the article by Paola Tinti in
this volume offers an example – and in this case there is no word limit.
Finally, I must apologise for the last minute change of this journal’s title. We
were informed on  October that the title “e Oxford Journal of … ” is reserved
(presumably by copyright) for publications of the Oxford University Press.

Brahmā’s Invitation: the Ariyapariyesanā-sutta in the Light of its
Madhyama-āgama Parallel*
Anālayo
e present article begins by surveying the role of the ancient Indian god
Brahmā in the early Buddhist discourses as exemplifying a tendency referred to in academic research as “inclusivism”. A prominent instance of
this tendency can be found in the Ariyapariyesanā-sutta of the Pāli canon,
which reports that Brahmā intervened to persuade the recently awakened
Buddha to teach. is episode is absent from a Madhyama-āgama parallel
to the Ariyapariyesanā-sutta, of which I provide a partial translation. e
translation is followed by a brief evaluation of this difference between the
two parallel records of the events surrounding the Buddha’s awakening.
Brahmā in Early Buddhism
e way the denizens of the ancient Indian pantheon appear in early Buddhist
texts exemplifies a mode of thought that scholars have called “inclusivism”. e
term inclusivism refers to a tendency to include, although in a subordinate position and at times with significant modifications, central elements of other religious traditions within the framework of one’s own.
e role of the ancient Indian god Brahmā in early Buddhist texts is a good
example of the way this strategy of inclusivism operates. Two main trends can be
discerned. Several passages mock the claim that Brahmā is an all-knowing and
* I am indebted to Rod Bucknell, Christian Luczanits, Shi Kongmu, Giuliana Martini, Jan Nattier, Ken Su and Monika Zin for comments and suggestions on a dra of the present paper. It goes
without saying that I am solely responsible for whatever errors still remain.

Cf. the articles collected in Oberhammer  (esp. the paper by Hacker), as well as Mertens
, Kiblinger  and Ruegg : –.
.  (): –. ©  Anālayo
 – ’ 
eternal creator god, while in other discourses a Brahmā by the name of Sahampati
acts as a guardian of Buddhism.
An instance of the tendency to satirize Brahmā, or more precisely to satirize
Brahmās, as in Buddhist texts we meet with several manifestations of this god,
can be found in the Brahmajāla-sutta and its parallels preserved in Chinese and
Tibetan translation as well as in Sanskrit fragments. e discourse professes to
explain, tongue-in-cheek, how the idea of a creator god came into being.
Behind the explanation proffered in the Brahmajāla-sutta and its parallels
stands the ancient Indian cosmological conception of the world system going
through cycles of dissolution and evolution. Once a period of dissolution is over,
the celestial Brahmā realm reappears and a particular living being, in accordance
with its merits, is reborn into this realm. is living being at some point feels
lonely and develops a wish for company. In the course of time, other living beings
are also reborn in this Brahmā world, in accordance with their merits. e living
being arisen first in the Brahmā world now reasons that its wish for company must
have been what caused those other living beings to appear in the Brahmā world.
is misconception then leads to the first living being’s claim to be the creator of
the others, a claim the other beings accept as fact and truth.
In this way, the Brahmajāla-sutta and its parallels parody a creation myth sim As this example shows,
ilar to what is found in the Brhadāra
nyaka
Upanisad.
.
.
.
early Buddhism does not flatly deny the existence of a creator god, but instead

Bailey :  explains that “Brahmā is treated in two distinct ways; either he is bitterly attacked, or he is portrayed as a zealous devotee of the Buddha”; cf. also Anālayo . In what
follows, I take into account only instances found in more than one textual tradition, thus passages
preserved only in the Pāli canon are le aside.

e relevant passage can be found in DĀ  at T I b, T  at T I b, Weller : , 
(§), and in discourse quotations in T  at T XXVIII a and D  ju a or Q  tu
b; cf. also Gombrich :  and Collins : f; for a comparative study and a translation
of DĀ  cf. Anālayo a.

is has been pointed out by Gombrich :  and Norman /: . e criticism
of such indications made by Bronkhorst : – relies on his assigning some of the early
discourses to a relatively late period, based on a reference in MN  at MN II , to Yona, which to
him (p. ) “suggests that the passage which contains this reference was composed aer – perhaps
long aer – the conquest of Alexander the Great”. I am under the impression that this need not
be the case. Already Bühler /:  note  points out that, given that an Indian contingent
formed part of the invasion of Greece by Xerxes ( ), once these Indians had returned home it
would be only natural for Indian texts to reflect knowledge of the Ionians (i.e., the reference is not
to Bactrian Greeks), cf. in more detail Anālayo b and for a survey of similar indications made
by other scholars Anālayo a:  note .

 – ’ 
purports to explain how this notion arose, namely as the outcome of a deluded
Brahmā’s belief that beings arose in his realm in compliance with its wish for company. With a good dose of humour, the psychologically intriguing point is made
by presenting the notion of a creator god as an inventive response to loneliness.
Another discourse features a direct confrontation between a Brahmā and the
Buddha, culminating in a contest. In this contest, each of the two tries to manifest
his respective power in a celestial version of “hide and seek”; that is, each attempts
to vanish from the other’s sight. While Brahmā fails to go beyond the Buddha’s
range of vision, the Buddha completely disappears from the sight of Brahmā and
the heavenly assembly.
By depicting the Buddha’s ability to trump Brahmā in regard to invisibility, the
discourse not only asserts the superiority of the Buddha, but also appears to be
punning on what may have been a common aspiration among Brahmins, namely
the wish to gain a personal vision of Brahmā.
e superior power of the Buddha comes up again in relation to another
Brahmā, who believes himself to be of such might that nobody else can reach
his realm. His complacent belief is thoroughly shattered when the Buddha and
several of his disciples manifest themselves seated in the air above this Brahmā.
Needless to say, the position and height of seats in ancient Indian customs express
the hierarchical positioning of those seated. Hence the image of Brahmā unexpectedly finding the Buddha and some monks seated above him would not have
failed to have its comic effect on the audience, while at the same time summing
up the message of the discourse in a succinct image easily remembered in an oral
society.
Another episode describes how the Great Brahmā encounters a Buddhist
monk who requests an answer to the ageless question about what transcends the

MN  at MN I ,  and MĀ  at T I c; on this discourse cf. also Gombrich , for
a comparative study of the two versions cf. Anālayo a: –.

is would be reflected in an episode in DN  at DN II ,, DĀ  at T I a and the
Mahāvastu, Senart : , , which reports how a Brahmin steward, because of his dexterous
way of carrying out his duties, is believed to have personally seen Brahmā, which then inspires him
to retire into seclusion and practise so as to indeed have such direct communion with Brahmā; cf.
also Sanskrit fragment sV in Schlingloff : . Another parallel, T  at T I c, differs in
not reporting the belief that he had already seen Brahmā.

SN . at SN I , and its parallels SĀ  at T II c and SĀ²  at T II c. In SN
. the Buddha and the monks even emanate fire.

Nichols :  comments, on the present instance, that in the Pāli version “the Buddha,
significantly, appears directly above the Brahmā, giving a spatial demonstration of his superiority”.

 – ’ 
world, formulated in terms of where the four elements of earth, water, fire and
wind cease without remainder. e monk had already proceeded through different celestial realms recognized in the ancient Indian cosmology, seeking a reply
to his question. His inquiry remained unanswered, as the denizens of each heavenly realm directed him onwards to the next higher realm for a reply to his query.
When he finally reaches the presence of the Great Brahmā, the answer he receives is that the Great Brahmā is supreme in the whole world. e monk is not
satisfied with this self-affirming declaration and insists on being instead given a
proper reply to his question. When the Great Brahmā realizes that he is not able
to get around this inquisitive monk by simply insisting on his own superiority,
the Great Brahmā takes the monk aside and confides that he does not know the
answer to the monk’s query. Yet the Great Brahmā cannot admit this in public, as
this would be upsetting to the other gods, who believe that Great Brahmā knows
everything.
is amusing description of the Great Brahmā being forced to admit his own
ignorance in private culminates with the Great Brahmā telling the monk that, to
find an answer to his question, he should return to where he came from and ask
the Buddha. In other words, with the help of an entertaining tale the audience is
told that, in order to get a proper reply to their quest for going beyond the world,
viz. Nirvāna,
. they should turn to the Buddha.
ese four tales vividly illustrate the tendency in early Buddhist discourse to
mock the notion of Brahmā as an all-knowing creator god of supreme might.
In addition to this satirical strand, however, the early Buddhist discourses also
feature a Brahmā in the role of a protector of Buddhism. In the Pāli discourses,
this Brahmā bears the name of Sahampati, although the parallel versions oen do
not give his name.
Several discourses report how this Brahmā approves the Buddha’s decision to
honour nobody else, instead according the place of honour to the Dharma that

DN  at DN I ,, Sanskrit fragment v in Zhou : , DĀ  at T I b (translated
in Meisig : ) and D  ju a or Q  tu a; cf. also SHT X  and  in Wille
: f and f. Kiblinger :  takes up the present instance as an example for Buddhist
inclusivism towards Vedic religion, where “belief in the Vedic gods continues, but not without some
new qualifications that position them much lower within the Buddhist system”.

According to McGovern , such criticism raised against Brahmā as a creator god appears
to have in turn had repercussions on this very notion in the Brahminical tradition.

SN . at SN I , or AN . at AN II ,  and their parallels SĀ  at T II c, SĀ²
 at T II a and D  nyu a or Q  thu a; cf. also T  at T IV c.

 – ’ 
he has discovered. In this way, Brahmā explicitly endorses the notion that the
Buddha is supreme in the world, a message similar to that conveyed in the tales
examined above. Instead of a deluded Brahmā whose defeat and discomfiture
convey this message, here we encounter a properly domesticated Brahmā who
knows his place ... in the Buddhist thought world, that is.
is Brahmā also voices his support of Buddhism in poetic form on another
occasion by extolling the life of a seriously practising Buddhist monk. Another
instance shows this Brahmā taking a close interest in the welfare of the Buddhist
order by intervening in order to reconcile the Buddha with a group of unruly
monks. At the time of the Buddha’s passing away, this Brahmā is again present
and pronounces a stanza suitable for the occasion.
e support given to the Buddhist cause by this Brahmā becomes particularly
prominent in the autobiographical account of the Buddha’s awakening, recorded
in the Ariyapariyesanā-sutta. According to this discourse, having just gained
awakening, the Buddha was hesitant to teach others what he had discovered. On
becoming aware of the Buddha’s disinclination to teach, Brahmā Sahampati appeared before the Buddha and requested him to teach, proclaiming that there
would be those who would understand.
e scene of Brahmā standing with his hands in the traditional gesture of respect to one side of the Buddha sitting in meditation became a favourite topic
of ancient Indian art, exemplifying the central theme that underlies this episode:
the superiority of the Buddha to Brahmā and thereby of the Buddha’s teaching to
Brahminical beliefs. e motif is already current during the aniconic period,

SN . at SN I , and its parallels SĀ  at T II c and SĀ²  at T II a.
MN  MN I ,  and one of its parallels, EĀ . at T II a; a comparative study of
this discourse and its parallels can be found in Anālayo a: –.

DN  at D II , and a Mahāparinirvāna-sūtra
fragment, Waldschmidt : , 
.
(§.), T  at T I c and T  at T I b; SN . at SN I ,  and its parallels SĀ  at
T II b and SĀ²  at T II a.

MN  at MN I ff; for a study of this discourse cf. Walters .

As pointed out by Bailey : – (cf. also Jones : f) and Zin : , for
Brahmā to intervene in this way is in keeping with his role in brahminical texts, where he encourages
Vālmīki to compose the Rāmāyana,
. Bhatt : , (..), Vyāsa to teach the Mahābhārata (according to one of several accounts of the origins of this work), Sukthankar : , (Appendix
.) , and Bharata to start the performance of theatre, according to the Nātyaśāstra,
Kedārnāth :
.
, (.).

Schmithausen :  note  explains that by inviting the Buddha to teach, Brahmā is “implicitly urging his own worshippers, the Brahmans, to acknowledge the superiority of the Buddha
and his teaching”. Gombrich :  comments that “the Buddhist claim to supersede brahmin


 – ’ 
when the presence of the Buddha appears to have been indicated only symbolically. One specimen from Gandhāra shows only the empty seat of awakening
under a tree, flanked on both sides by the gods Brahmā and Indra, who, with
their hands in the traditional gesture of respect, appear to be inviting the Buddha
to teach (see Figure ).
Figure : Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum
teaching could not be more blatant”, cf. also Gombrich : . Nichols :  adds that “the
motif of Brahmā pleading for the presence of the dhamma in the world shows the supposed creator’s
helplessness” to bring about the same without the Buddha.

Cf. the arguments advanced by Dehejia  and Linrothe  in reply to Huntington 
and Huntington .

e sculpture is at present in the British Museum, London.

 – ’ 
e tendency to depict the Buddha being worshipped by Brahmā as well as
Indra is pervasive in sculptures, including reliquaries. In some cases it remains uncertain if a particular image is intended to portray the request to teach,
or whether it may be just a scene of worship in general.
In another specimen from Gandhāra, however, the Buddha is clearly shown
in a reflective pose, supporting his head with his right arm, which in turn is supported by his raised knee. Although this posture is frequently used for bodhisattva
images, the monkish dress in combination with the us. nī
. sa
. make it clear that the
central figure is the Buddha. e seat and the tree in the background suggest
the seat of awakening and on each side of the Buddha, at a little distance, stand
Brahmā and Indra, who share with the Buddha the feature of being haloed. Be
tween Indra and the Buddha, a little to the back, we also find Vajrapāni.
.
e proposed identification of this image as depicting “the pensive Buddha
who is being requested to teach the Dharma” appears at first glance not entirely
straightforward. e Buddha is surrounded by five monks, while Brahmā and
Indra – supposedly major figures in the present scene – stand at some distance
from him. On the Buddha’s right two monks are turned towards him with their
hands held in the gesture of worship. On his le another three monks are standing,
of whom the one closest to the Buddha may also be in the same respectful gesture,
while the next one turns back towards his companion, as if he were hesitating or
in doubt, needing to be urged on by the fih in the group.

Several representations in Gandhāran art are collected in Kurita : – and –; cf.
also Foucher : –. A study of the role of Indra in Buddhist texts as another instance of
inclusivism can be found in Anālayo b.

A well-known example is the Kaniska
. reliquary; cf., e.g., van Lohuizen-de Leeuw : –
, the description in Dobbins :  and the photograph in Huntington : .

Rhi :  note .

For a survey cf. Lee .

In Gandhāran art Vajrapāni
. and Indra are distinct from each other, cf. Foucher : ,
Senart : , Vogel : , Konow , Coomaraswamy : , Santoro : ; cf.
also Lamotte . In the Pāli commentarial tradition, however, these two are identical, cf., e.g., Sv
I ,.

e relief, which is now found in the Swat Museum, Saidu Sharif, Pakistan, has been identified
in Luczanits :  catalogue number  as “der nachdenkliche Buddha wird gebeten, den
Dharma zu lehren”.

 – ’ 
Figure : Courtesy Christian Luczanits
e fact that the monks are five in number, together with the impression that
not all of them are filled with the same degree of confidence, suggests that the
scene may represent the Buddha’s encounter with what were to become his first
five monk disciples, an episode narrated in the latter part of the Ariyapariyesanāsutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel. e two versions agree that although the
five monks had decided not to show respect to the Buddha, as they thought he had
given up his striving for liberation, when he actually approached they did receive
him with respect.
Given that in Indian and Central Asian art successive events are at times represented in a single image, the present piece could be combining the request
to teach by Brahmā and Indra with a pictorial reference to his being received by
those who were the first to benefit from the Buddha’s acceptance of this request.

Cf., e.g., Schlingloff .

 – ’ 
Coming back to the textual sources, records of the present episode in the early
discourses and in several biographies preserved in Chinese translation mention
only an intervention by Brahmā alone, without referring to Indra. e same is
true of several Vinaya accounts. According to the Mahāvastu, however, Brahmā
came together with Indra. e same is also stated in the Jātaka Nidānakathā.
is gives the impression that for Brahmā to be accompanied by Indra could be
a subsequent stage in the evolution of this motif, which in turn influenced representations in art.
In view of the widespread occurrence of this episode in art and literature,
it comes as a surprise that the only known complete discourse parallel to the
Ariyapariyesanā-sutta does not mention Brahmā at all. is parallel is found in a
Madhyama-āgama collection preserved in Chinese translation, which according
to modern scholarship can be assigned to the Sarvāstivāda tradition. In what
follows, I translate the first part of the Madhyama-āgama discourse.
Translation
e Discourse at Ramma[ka]’s [Hermitage]

MN  at MN I , (repeated in MN  at MN II , and SN . at SN I ,),
Catuspari
sat-sūtra
fragment, Waldschmidt : , (§.), and EĀ . at T II b (trans.
.
lated in Bareau : ); cf. also, e.g., T  at T III b, T  at T III a, T  at T III
a and T  at T III a.

Cf. the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, T  at T XXII c; the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, T  at T
XXII c; the (Mūla)-Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, Gnoli : , (cf. also T  at T XXIV b
and the Tibetan parallel, Waldschmidt : , (§.)); and the eravāda Vinaya, Vin I ,.

Senart : ,. In the Lalitavistara, Brahmā is rather accompanied by his retinue, Lefmann
: , (cf. also T  at T III b and T  at T III b).

Jā I ,. Stanzas with which Indra (Sakka) and then Brahmā invite the Buddha to teach can
be found in SN . at SN I ,, a discourse which, however, gives Jeta’s Grove as the location.

On the school affiliation of this collection cf., e.g., Lü : , Waldschmidt : ,
Enomoto , Mayeda : , Enomoto : , Minh Chau :  and Oberlies : .

e translated part of MĀ  begins at T I c and ends at T I b. Translations of this
part of MĀ , taken section by section, can be found in Bareau : f, f, ,  and  and
in Minh Chau : – and –.

e Pāli editions differ on the title. While Ee and Ce have the title Ariyapariyesanā-sutta, the
“Discourse on the Noble Search”, Be and Se give the title as Pāsarāsi-sutta, the “Discourse on the
Heap of Snares”, referring to a simile that describes a deer caught in snares, found in the latter part
of the discourse.

 – ’ 
. us have I heard. At one time the Buddha was dwelling at Sāvatthī, in
the Eastern Garden, the Mansion of Migāra’s Mother.
. At that time, in the aernoon the Blessed One emerged from sitting in
seclusion, came down from the top of the mansion and said to the venerable
Ānanda: “I shall now go together with you to the river Aciravatī to bathe”. e
venerable Ānanda replied: “Yes, certainly”.
e venerable Ānanda took hold of a door-opener and went to all the huts.
He told all the monks he saw: “Venerable ones, you could all gather at the house
of the Brahmin Ramma[ka].” On hearing this the monks gathered at the house of
the Brahmin Ramma[ka].
e Blessed One, followed by the venerable Ānanda, went to the Aciravatī
river. He took off his robes, placed them on the bank and entered the water to
bathe. Having bathed, he came out again, wiped his body [dry] and put on his
robes.
At that time the venerable Ānanda was standing behind the Blessed One,
holding a fan and fanning the Buddha. en the venerable Ānanda, with his
hands joined [in respect] towards the Buddha, said: “Blessed One, the house of
the Brahmin Ramma[ka] is very pleasant and orderly, it is highly delightful. May
the Blessed One approach the house of the Brahmin Ramma[ka], out of compassion.” e Blessed One accepted [the suggestion of] the venerable Ānanda by
remaining silent.

In order to facilitate comparison with the translation of MN  by Ñānamoli
/: –
.
, I adopt the same paragraph numbering, which at times inevitably leads to inconsistencies in
the numbering, such as in the present case, where a counterpart to § is not found in MĀ . For
the same reason of ease of comparison, I use Pāli terminology, except for terms like Dharma and
Nirvāna,
. without thereby intending to take a position on the original language of the Madhyamaāgama or on Pāli terminology being in principle preferable. In the notes to the translation, my focus
is on the discourse parallels. A comparative study of the present discourse that takes into account
a wider range of parallel material can be found in Anālayo a: –.

MN  at MN I , provides a more detailed introductory narration, corresponding to §
and the first part of § in Ñānamoli
/: . According to its report, in the morning the
.
Buddha had gone begging alms and some monks had approached Ānanda expressing their wish to
receive a discourse from the Buddha, whereupon Ānanda told them to go to Rammaka’s hermitage.
Sanskrit fragment parallels to the present episode are SHT V a in Sander : , SHT VI
 in Bechert : f, and SHT X  in Wille : .

e episode of Ānanda informing the other monks is not found in MN .

According to MN  at MN I ,, he stood clothed in one robe waiting for his limbs to dry
on their own.

 – ’ 
. en the Blessed One, followed by the venerable Ānanda, went to the house
of the Brahmin Ramma[ka]. At that time, a group of many monks were seated
together in the house of the Brahmin Ramma[ka] discussing the Dharma. e
Buddha stood outside the door, waiting for the monks to finish their discussion
of the Dharma. e group of many monks, having completed their investigation
and discussion of the Dharma, remained silent. On [coming] to know this, the
Blessed One coughed and knocked on the door. Hearing him, the monks swily
came and opened the door.
e Blessed One entered the house of the Brahmin Ramma[ka] and sat on a
seat that had been prepared in front of the group of monks. He asked them: “What
have you just been discussing, monks? For what matter are you sitting together
here?” en the monks replied: “Blessed One, we have just been discussing the
Dharma, it is for a matter of Dharma that we have been sitting together here.”
e Buddha commended them: “It is well, it is well, monks, sitting together
you should engage in [either of] two things: the first is to discuss the Dharma, the
second is to remain silent. [a] Why? I shall also teach you the Dharma, listen
carefully and pay proper attention!” e monks replied: “Yes, of course, we shall
listen to receive the instruction.”
. e Buddha said: “ere are two types of search, the first is called a noble search, the second is called an ignoble search. What is an ignoble search?
Someone, being actually subject to disease, searches aer what is subject to disease, being actually subject to old age ... subject to death ... subject to worry and
sadness ... being actually subject to defilement, searches aer what is subject to
defilement.
. What is, being actually subject to disease, searching aer what is subject to
disease? What is subject to disease? Sons and brothers are subject to disease,

In MN  at MN I , the second part of the Buddha’s inquiry is about the nature of their
discussion that had been interrupted, vippakata. is appears to be an application of a stock phrase
without consideration of the context, since the preceding section, in agreement with MĀ , indicates that their discussion had not been interrupted, as the Buddha had politely waited for it to
finish before making his presence known.

According to MN  at MN I ,, the monks had been speaking about the Blessed One. is
would provide a smoother transition to the Buddha’s subsequent delivery of an autobiographical
account of his awakening, thereby continuing with a topic already broached by the monks.

Here and below, the abbreviations are found in the original.

MN  at MN I , also mentions being subject to birth (= § in Ñānamoli
/:
.
). Another difference is in the sequence, as MN  turns to being subject to disease (§) only
aer mentioning the topic of being subject to old age (§). Yet another difference is that MN 

 – ’ 
elephants, horses, cattle, sheep, male and female slaves, wealth, treasures, rice and
cereals are subject to disease and destruction. Living beings, stained and touched
by greed and attachment, intoxicated with pride, take hold of and enter amidst
these, without seeing the danger and without seeing an escape, grasping at them
and engaging with them.
. - . What is being subject to old age ... subject to death ... subject to worry
and sadness ... subject to defilement? Sons and brothers are subject to defilement,
elephants, horses, cattle, sheep, male and female slaves, wealth, treasures, rice and
cereals are subject to defilement and destruction. Living beings, stained and
touched by greed and attachment, intoxicated with pride, take hold of and enter
amidst these, without seeing the danger and without seeing an escape, grasping
at them and engaging with them.
at such a person, wanting and searching for the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
.
which is free from disease, should attain the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which
is free from disease – that is not possible. [at such a person, wanting and]
searching for the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from old age ... free
from death ... free from worry and sadness ... free from defilement, should attain
the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from old age ... free from death ...
free from worry and sadness ... free from defilement – that is not possible. is is
reckoned an ignoble search.
. What is a noble search? Someone reflects: ‘I am actually subject to disease
myself and I naively search for what is subject to disease, I am actually subject to
old age... subject to death ... subject to worry and sadness ... subject to defilement
myself and I naively search for what is subject to defilement. I would now rather
search for the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from disease, search for
the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
which
is
free from old age ... free from death ...
.
free from worry and sadness ... free from defilement!’
gives a full treatment of each topic, while MĀ  abbreviates. e items mentioned to illustrate
each case also differ slightly, thus MN  at MN I , mentions wife and son instead of brother
and son, etc. e main themes are the same, however, except that MN  does not refer to rice and
cereals at all.

MN  does not take up the topic of not seeing the danger and the escape, although such a
reference can be found regularly in other contexts, e.g., MN  at MN II ,: anādīnavadassāvī
anissaranapañño,
differing from the formulation in MĀ  in as much as, in regard to the escape,
.
the Pāli phrase speaks of lacking wisdom.

Adopting the variant 污 instead of 法.

 – ’ 
at such a person, searching for the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is
free from disease, should attain the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from
disease – that is certainly possible. [at such a person], searching for the supreme
peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from old age ... free from death ... free from worry
and sadness ... free from defilement, should attain the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
.
which is free from old age ... free from death ... free from worry and sadness ...
free from defilement – that is certainly possible.
. Formerly, when I had not yet awakened to supreme, right and complete
awakening, I thought like this: ‘I am actually subject to disease myself and I naively
search for what is subject to disease, I am actually subject to old age ... subject
to death ... subject to worry and sadness ... subject to defilement myself and I
naively search for what is subject to defilement. What if I now rather search for
the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from disease, search for the supreme
peace of Nirvāna,
which
is
free
from old age ... free from death ... free from worry
.
and sadness [b] ... free from defilement?’
. At that time I was a young lad, with clear [skin] and dark hair, in the
prime of youth, twenty-nine years of age, roaming around well adorned and enjoying myself to the utmost. At that time I shaved off my hair and beard, while
my father and mother were crying and my relatives were displeased. I donned
dyed robes and out of faith went forth to leave the household life and train in the
path, maintaining purity of livelihood in body, maintaining purity of livelihood
in speech and in mind.

MĀ  at T I b: 父母啼哭. MN  at MN I , agrees that the mother and the father
were crying, although it mentions the mother first. e circumstance that MĀ  has the father
first may, as suggested by Guang Xing :  note , reflect Confucian influence; cf. also Anālayo
a:  note . Bareau :  notes that it is curious for the mother to be described as
being present when her son goes forth, as elsewhere she is reported to have passed away seven days
aer his birth, cf. MN  at MN III , or Ud . at Ud ,. I intend to examine this point in
another paper, at present in preparation.

MĀ  at T I b: 護身命清淨, 護口, 意命清淨. While MN  does not mention the
bodhisattva’s development of bodily, verbal and mental purity (or his accomplishing the aggregate
of morality, which is mentioned later), a comparable reference, with a somewhat different wording,
can be found in a Sanskrit discourse fragment paralleling the present episode, fragment r in
Liu : , which reads kāyena samv
. rto
. viharāmi vācā āj[ī]va[m]
. ca pa[riś]odha[yā]mi. Judging
from the Sanskrit reading, the reference to the mind, 意, could be a later addition to the passage in
MĀ , as a purification of livelihood would only require restraint of bodily and verbal actions.
Such a later addition could easily happen during the transmission of the text, as elsewhere the discourses oen speak of the triad body, speech and mind, making it natural for the term mind to

 – ’ 
. Having accomplished this aggregate of morality, aspiring and searching
for the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from disease ... free from old
age ... free from death ... free from worry and sadness ... the supreme peace of
Nirvāna,
Kālāma and asked
. which is free from defilement, I approached Ālāra
.
him: “Ālāra,
I wish to practise the holy life in your Dharma, will you permit it?”
.
Ālāra
replied
to me: “Venerable one, I certainly permit it. You may practise as
.
you wish to practise.”
I asked again: “Ālāra,
this Dharma of yours, did you know it yourself, un.
derstand it yourself, realize it yourself?” Ālāra
replied to me: “Venerable one,
.
completely transcending the sphere of [boundless] consciousness I have attained
dwelling in the sphere of nothingness. erefore I myself have known this Dharma
of mine, understood it myself, realized it myself.”
I thought again: ‘Not only Ālāra
has such faith, I too have such faith, not
.
only Ālāra
. has such energy, I too have such energy, not only Ālāra
. has such wis
has known this teaching himdom, I too have such wisdom, [whereby] Ālāra
.
self, understood it himself, realized it himself.’ Because I wished to realize this
Dharma, I thereupon went to stay alone and in seclusion, in an empty, quiet and
tranquil place, with a mind free from indolence I practised energetically. Having stayed alone and in seclusion, in an empty, quiet and tranquil place, with a
mind free from indolence practising energetically, not long aerwards I realized
that Dharma.
Having realized that Dharma, I again approached Ālāra
Kālāma and asked
.
him: “Ālāra,
is this the Dharma you have known yourself, understood yourself, re.
alized yourself, namely, by completely transcending the sphere of boundless consciousness to attain dwelling in the sphere of nothingness?” Ālāra
. Kālāma replied
make its way into the present context. Von Hinüber /:  explains that “pieces of texts
known by heart may intrude into almost any context once there is a corresponding key word.”

MN  at MN I , indicates that the bodhisattva at first learned the theoretical aspects of
Ālāra’s
Dharma.
.

Dutt :  explains that the reference to faith in the present context stands for “confidence
in his abilities to develop the powers necessary to achieve his object.”

MN  at MN I , lists all of the five faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom. e same is also the case for the corresponding section in the Sanskrit fragment
v– in Liu : . Since mindfulness and concentration are required to reach deeper levels
of concentration, the Pāli and Sanskrit listings of mental qualities offer a more complete presentation.

MN  does not mention that the bodhisattva went to practise energetically in seclusion. Sanskrit fragment v in Liu :  agrees in this respect with MĀ .

 – ’ 
to me: “Venerable one, this is [indeed] the Dharma that I have known myself, understood myself, realized myself, namely, by completely transcending the sphere
of [boundless] consciousness to attain dwelling in the sphere of nothingness.”
Ālāra
. Kālāma further said to me: “Venerable one, just as I realized this Dharma,
so too have you; just as you realized this Dharma, so too have I. Venerable one,
come and share the leadership of this group.” us Ālāra
Kālāma, the teacher,
.
placed me on an equal level, thereby giving me supreme respect, supreme support and [expressing] his supreme delight.
I thought again:[c] “is Dharma does not lead to knowledge, does not
lead to awakening, does not lead to Nirvāna.
. I would rather leave this Dharma and
continue searching for the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from disease
... free from old age ... free from death ... free from worry and sadness ... the
supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from defilement.”
. I promptly le this Dharma and continued searching for the supreme
peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from disease ... free from old age ... free from
death ... free from worry and sadness ... the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is
free from defilement. I approached Uddaka Rāmaputta and asked him: “Uddaka,
I wish to train in your Dharma, will you permit it?” Uddaka Rāmaputta replied to
me: “Venerable one, I certainly permit it. You may train as you wish to train.”
I asked again: “Uddaka, what Dharma did your father, Rāma, know himself,
understand himself, realize himself?” Uddaka Rāmaputta replied to me: “Venerable one, completely transcending the sphere of nothingness he attained dwelling
in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Venerable one, what my
father Rāma knew himself, understood himself, realized himself, is this Dharma.”
I thought again: ‘Not only Rāma had such faith, I too have such faith, not only
Rāma had such energy, I too have such energy, not only Rāma had such wisdom,
I too have such wisdom, [whereby] Rāma knew this Dharma himself, understood
it himself, realized it himself. Why should I not get to know this Dharma myself,
understand it myself, realize it myself?’ Because I wished to realize this Dharma, I
thereon went to stay alone and in seclusion, in an empty, quiet and tranquil place,
with a mind free from indolence I practised energetically. Having stayed alone
and in seclusion, in an empty, quiet and tranquil place, with a mind free from
indolence practising energetically, not long aerwards I realized that Dharma.

According to MN  at MN ,, at this point the bodhisattva explicitly indicates that he has
attained the same. Sanskrit fragment v in Liu :  agrees in this respect with MN .

Adopting the variant reading 父羅摩 instead of 羅摩子.

 – ’ 
Having realized that Dharma, I again approached Uddaka Rāmaputta and
asked him: “Uddaka, is this the Dharma your father Rāma knew himself, understood himself, realized himself, namely, by completely transcending the sphere
of nothingness to attain dwelling in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception?” Uddaka Rāmaputta replied to me: “Venerable one, this is [indeed]
the Dharma that my father Rāma knew himself, understood himself, realized
himself, namely, by completely transcending the sphere of nothingness to attain
dwelling in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.”
Uddaka Rāmaputta further said to me: “Venerable one, just as my father Rāma
realized this Dharma, so too have you; just as you realized this Dharma, so too
did my father. Venerable one, come and share the leadership of this group.”
us Uddaka Rāmaputta, the teacher, made me also a teacher, thereby giving me
supreme respect, supreme support and [expressing] his supreme delight.
I thought again: “is Dharma does not lead to knowledge, [a] does not
lead to awakening, does not lead to Nirvāna.
. I would rather leave this teaching and
continue searching for the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from disease
... free from old age ... free from death ... free from worry and sadness ... the
supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from defilement.’
. I promptly le this Dharma and continued to search for the supreme peace
of Nirvāna,
. which is free from disease ... free from old age ... free from death
... free from worry and sadness ... the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free
from defilement, I went to a Brahmin village called Sena near Uruvelā, south of
Elephant Peak Mountain. In that area I reached a delightful lush mountain forest
by the river Nerañjarā, which was clean and full to its banks.
On seeing it, I thought: ‘is place that I have reached is a delightful lush
mountain forest by the river Nerañjarā, which is clean and full to its banks. If a
son of a good family wishes to train, he can train here. So I shall train, I would
now rather train in this place.’ I promptly took some grass and approached the
tree of awakening. Having reached it, I spread out [the grass] as a sitting mat
beneath [the tree] and sat down cross-legged with the determination not to break

According to MN  at MN I ,, however, Uddaka offered the sole leadership of his group
to the bodhisattva. Sanskrit fragment r in Liu :  agrees in this respect with MĀ . In
view of the fact that the bodhisattva had attained what Uddaka had not attained himself, the reading
in MN  fits the context better. Because of the repetitive nature of the account of the two teachers,
it could easily have happened that the reading appropriate for the first instance was accidentally
applied to the second instance, taking place at a time before the Sanskrit fragment version and MĀ
 were transmitted separately.

 – ’ 
my sitting until the influxes had been eradicated. I [indeed] did not break my
sitting until the influxes had been eradicated.
. Searching for the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from disease,
I attained the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
which
is
free from disease. Searching
.
for the supreme peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from old age ... free from death
... free from worry and sadness ... free from defilement, I attained the supreme
peace of Nirvāna,
. which is free from old age ... free from death ... free from worry
and sadness ... free from defilement. Knowledge arose, vision arose and I was
concentrated on the requisites of awakening. I knew as it truly is that birth has
been eradicated, the holy life has been established, what had to be done has been
done and there will be no more experiencing of existence.
. Having just awakened to the supreme, right and complete awakening, I
thought: “To whom should I first teach the Dharma?” I further thought: “Should
I now first teach the Dharma to Ālāra
. Kālāma?” At that time there was a heavenly
being up in the sky that told me: “Great sage, may you know that Ālāra
Kālāma
.
passed away seven days ago.” I also came to know for myself that Ālāra
Kālāma
had
.
passed away seven days ago. I thought again: “It is a great loss for Ālāra
Kālāma
.
that he did not get to hear this Dharma. If he had heard it, he would have quickly
understood the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma.”
. Having just awakened to supreme, right and complete awakening, I
thought: “To whom should I first teach the Dharma?” I further thought: “Should
I now first teach the Dharma to Uddaka Rāmaputta?” At that time there was again
a heavenly being up in the sky that told me: “Great sage, may you know that Uddaka Rāmaputta passed away fourteen days ago.” [b] I also came to know
for myself that Uddaka Rāmaputta had passed away fourteen days ago. I thought
again: “It is a great loss for Uddaka Rāmaputta that he did not get to hear this
Dharma. If he had heard it, he would have quickly understood the Dharma in
accordance with the Dharma.”

MN  does not report the preparation of the seat or the determination not to get up until the
influxes are destroyed.

A reference to the bodhipakkhiyā dhammā is not found in MN .

At this point, MN  at MN I , to MN I , continues with the Buddha’s reflection that
his Dharma is difficult to understand, followed by reporting Brahmā’s intervention. us two full
pages of the Ee edition, corresponding to §§– in Ñānamoli
/: –, are without
.
any counterpart in MĀ .

According to MN  at MN I ,, Uddaka had passed away just the night before.

 – ’ 
. Having just awakened to supreme, right and complete awakening, I
thought: “To whom should I first teach the Dharma?” I further thought: “e
five monks of former times, who supported me in my efforts, have been of much
benefit. When I practised asceticism, those five monks served me. Should I now
first teach the Dharma to the five monks?” I further thought: “Where are the five
monks of former times now?” With the purified divine eye that transcends [the
vision] of human beings I saw that the five monks were in the Deer Park at the
Dwelling-place of Seers near Benares. Aer staying under the tree of awakening according [to my wishes], I gathered my robes, took my bowl and approached
Benares, the city of Kāsi.
Comparison
Placing the above translated part of the Discourse at Ramma[ka]’s [Hermitage]
and the corresponding part of the Ariyapariyesanā-sutta side by side reveals a
number of small variations. By far the most prominent difference, however, is
the complete absence of Brahmā in the Madhyama-āgama version.
In the Ariyapariyesanā-sutta, the episode with Brahmā’s intervention begins
with the Buddha reflecting on the profundity of his realization, in particular the
difficulty of understanding the principle of dependent arising and the nature of
Nirvāna
. for those who are steeped in worldliness and defilements. Anticipating
that others would not understand him, the Buddha considers that this would be
troublesome and decides not to teach the Dharma.
Brahmā Sahampati becomes aware of this reflection in the Buddha’s mind and
realizes that the world will be lost, as the Buddha is disinclined to teach. Quickly
appearing in front of the Buddha, with hands together in respect, Brahmā Sahampati requests the Buddha to teach, arguing that some will understand. Following Brahmā’s request, out of compassion the Buddha surveys the world with
his divine eye and realizes that some beings are indeed capable of understanding,
whereupon he decides to teach. Realizing that the mission has been successful,
Brahmā Sahampati pays homage and disappears.

MĀ  at T I b: 仙人住, while MN  at MN I , speaks of the Isipatana; on the
term cf. Caillat .

MĀ  continues with the Buddha meeting Upaka on the way to Benares, etc.

ere are more substantial differences between the remaining parts of MN  and MĀ ,
which I did not translate in order to stay within the prescribed size for an article in this journal.

 – ’ 
In principle, the difference between the two parallel versions regarding the
episode of Brahmā’s intervention can be explained in two ways:
) e episode has been lost in the Madhyama-āgama Discourse at
Ramma[ka]’s [Hermitage], either through accidental loss or because those
responsible for its transmission or translation have purposely omitted it.
) e narration of Brahmā’s entreaty is an element added later to the Ariyapariyesanā-sutta.
Regarding the first possibility, the Madhyama-āgama discourse translated
above does not give the impression that a loss of text has occurred, as the narration runs smoothly without any uneven transition. Moreover, the remainder
of the Chinese discourse makes as much sense as its Pāli parallel; that is, there
appears to be no need for Brahmā to intervene in order for subsequent events to
be coherent.
Proposing a conscious omission of this episode from the Madhyama-āgama
version would require identifying some good reason for removing it. is can in
fact be found. With subsequent developments in Buddhist traditions, the notion
became prevalent that the Buddha had prepared himself during numerous past
lives for his task as a teacher who would lead others to awakening. is notion
makes it rather surprising that, once he has accomplished all that is required for
carrying out this mission, he should need prompting by another in order to start
teaching at all. Without this episode, the Buddha’s autobiographical account is
more easily reconciled with the traditional belief in his prolonged preparation for
becoming a teacher.
Regarding the second of the two above-mentioned possibilities, however, it
seems equally possible that the Brahmā episode is a later addition. e general

Bloomfield :  comments that “from the earliest times Buddhists have found this
episode problematic. It seems unthinkable that the supreme embodiment of compassion would
have considered keeping his wisdom to himself ”; cf. also Bareau : f, Webster , Jones
 and Anālayo : –.

Nakamura :  comments that “the intervention of Brahmā ... cannot be found in the
equivalent Chinese translation and is therefore a later interpolation”. Nakamura supports his conclusion by arguing that the reference to dependent arising, found in MN  at MN I , just
before Brahmā’s intervention, differs from the referents used earlier in the discourse to the final
goal as something that is tranquil and free from defilement. Yet a reflection on the significance
of what has just been realized need not perforce use precisely the same terms as a description of
the earlier aspiration to what at that point had not yet been experienced. ese two contexts are

 – ’ 
tendency during oral transmission is in fact more oen to add and expand than
consciously to remove passages. Given that the Madhyama-āgama account reads
smoothly without Brahmā’s intervention, it could well be that an early version of
the Buddha’s autobiographical account did not mention Brahmā at all.
e same pattern recurs in relation to the former Buddha Vipassī: the Mahāpadāna-sutta and its Dīrgha-āgama parallel – the latter probably stemming from
the Dharmaguptaka tradition – report an intervention by Brahmā which is
absent from a partial parallel preserved in Chinese and from a Sanskrit fragment
version. e partial Chinese version shows several substantial differences when
compared with the Sanskrit fragments of the Mahāvadāna-sūtra, making it fairly
certain that the two stem from different lines of transmission.
sufficiently different to allow for different but complementary perspectives on the implications of
awakening.

On the school affiliation of the Dīrgha-āgama cf., e.g., Demiéville : f, Brough /
: , Lü : , Bareau , Waldschmidt : , Mayeda : , Enomoto :
 and Oberlies : .

DN  at DN II , and DĀ  at T I b.

T  at T I c and Waldschmidt :  note .

Just to mention a few major differences: On the prince’s first outing from the palace, according
to T  at T I b he encounters a sick person, in the Sanskrit fragment version, Waldschmidt
: , , he instead first comes across someone afflicted by old age and only meets a sick person on the second outing. When his father comes to know what has happened, in T  at T I c
he reflects that by staying at home the prince will become a wheel-turning king, but by going forth
he will become a Buddha, whereas in the Sanskrit fragment version, Waldschmidt : ,,
the father worries whether the prediction that the prince will go forth will come true, without any
reference to his becoming a wheel-turning king or a Buddha. On the fourth outing, having seen
someone who has gone forth in T  at T I c the prince returns to the palace and there develops
the aspiration to go forth, whereas in the Sanskrit fragment version, Waldschmidt : ,, he
approaches the renunciate, converses with him and then decides on the spot to go forth as well. e
Sanskrit fragments, Waldschmidt : ,, report that a reflection on the nature of the Dharma
motivates the people to follow the prince’s example and go forth, whereas in T  at T I c they
are motivated by his having relinquished his high position. According to the Sanskrit fragment
version, Waldschmidt : ,, the bodhisattva Vipaśyin decides that he had better live alone
and therefore dismisses the people who have followed him and gone forth, telling them to come
back once he has reached awakening. Next he obtains grass and approaches the seat of awakening
with the intention not to break his sitting until the destruction of the influxes has been achieved.
None of these episodes is recorded in T . In T  at T I a the bodhisattva Vipaśyin’s investigation of dependent arising covers all twelve links, including formations and ignorance, whereas
in the Sanskrit fragment version, Waldschmidt : ,, his investigation instead leads up to
the reciprocal conditioning of consciousness and name-and-form. In T  at T I b Vipaśyin’s
awakening is preceded by his contemplation of the rise and fall of the five aggregates, whereas the
Sanskrit fragment version, Waldschmidt : ,, also mentions his contemplation of the rise

 – ’ 
Once the absence of the Brahmā episode recurs in what appear to be separate lines of transmission, it becomes probable that this episode is indeed a later
addition. If such an addition took place, it must have happened at a time when
the Madhyama-āgama parallel to the Ariyapariyesanā-sutta as well as the Sanskrit
fragment version of the Mahāvadāna-sūtra and the partial Chinese parallel were
already being transmitted independently from the ancestor of the eravāda and
Dharmaguptaka versions of these discourses. e powerful effect of this episode
would then have been responsible for the widespread occurrence of Brahmā’s intervention in texts like the Mahāvastu or the Jātaka Nidānakathā, etc., and in
iconographic representations.
While the tendency for Brahmā to be ‘included’ in early Buddhist discourses
appears to be so well attested that it can safely be assumed to be early, the most
prominent example of Brahmā’s role as a promoter of Buddhism – his requesting
the Buddha to teach and thereby enabling the coming into existence of the whole
Buddhist tradition – may be a later addition to the autobiographical account of
the Buddha’s awakening.
and fall of the links of dependent arising. Such substantial differences make it safe to assume that
the two versions derive from separate transmission lineages.

 – ’ 
Abbreviations
AN
Be
Ce
D
DĀ
DN
EĀ
Ee
Jā
MĀ
MN
Q
Se
SĀ
SĀ²
SHT
SN
Sv
T
Ud
Vin
Aṅguttara-nikāya
Burmese edition
Ceylonese edition
Derge edition
Dirgha-āgama (T )
Dīgha-nikāya
Ekottarika-āgama (T )
PTS edition
Jātaka
Madhyama-āgama (T )
Majjhima-nikāya
Qian-long (Peking) edition
Siamese edition
Samyukta-āgama
(T )
.
Samyukta-āgama
(T )
.
Sanskrithandschrien aus den Turfanfunden
Samyutta-nikāya
.
Sumaṅgalavilāsinī
Taishō edition (CBETA)
Udāna
Vinayapitaka
.
References
Anālayo . “e Role of Brahmā in Pāli Discourses”. e Sri Lanka Journal of the
Humanities, /: –.
—— a. “Views and the Tathāgata, A Comparative Study and Translation of the
Brahmajāla in the Chinese Dīrgha-āgama”. In K.L. Dhammajoti et al. (eds.) Buddhist and Pali Studies in Honour of the Venerable Professor Kakkapalliye Anuruddha, –. Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Studies, University of Hong
Kong.
—— b. “Yona”. In W.G. Weeraratne (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Buddhism,  ():
–. Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs.
—— . e Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal. Hamburg University Press.

 – ’ 
—— a. A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikāya. Taipei: Dharma Drum
Publishing Corporation.
—— b. “Śakra and the Destruction of Craving – A Case Study in the Role of
Śakra in Early Buddhism”. Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies, :
– (forthcoming).
Bailey, Greg . e Mythology of Brahmā. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bareau, André . Recherches sur la biographie du Buddha dans les Sūtrapitaka
et
.
le Vinayapitaka
anciens:
De
la
quête
de
l’éveil
a
la
conversion
de
Śāriputra
et
de
.
Maudgalyāyana. Paris: École Française d’Extrême Orient, .
—— . “L’Origine du Dīrgha-Āgama Traduit en Chinois par Buddhayaśas”. In
B. Shin et al. (ed.), Essays Offered to G.H. Luce by his Colleagues and Friends
in Honour of his Seventy-fih Birthday, – , Switzerland, Ascona: Artibus
Asiae.
—— . “La jeunesse du Buddha dans les Sūtrapitaka
et les Vinayapitaka
anciens”.
.
.
Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient, : –.
—— . “Les débuts de la prédication du Buddha selon l’Ekottara-Āgama”. Bulletin
de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient, : –.
Bechert, Heinz, Wille K. . Sanskrithandschrien aus den Turfanfunden, Teil .
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Bhatt, G.H. . e Bālakān. da,
. e First Book of the Vālmīki Rāmāyana,
. e National Epic of India. Baroda: Oriental Institute.
Bloomfield, Vishvapani . Gautama Buddha, e Life and Teachings of the Awakened One. London: Quercus.
Bronkhorst, Johannes . Greater Magadha, Studies in the Culture of Early India.
Leiden: Brill.
Brough, John /. e Gāndhārī Dharmapada, Edited with an Introduction
and Commentary, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Bühler, Georg /. On the Origin of the Indian Brahmā Alphabet. Varanasi:
Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
Caillat, Colette . “Isipatana Migadāya”. Journal Asiatique,  (): –.
Collins, Steve . Civilisation et femmes célibataires dans le bouddhisme en Asie du
Sud et du Sud-est, Une ‘étude de genre’. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. . Yaksas.
. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Dehejia, Vidya . “Aniconism and the Multivalence of Emblems”. Ars Orientalis,
: –.
Demiéville, Paul . “A propos du Concile de Vaiśālī”. T’oung Pao, : –.

 – ’ 
Dobbins, K.Walton . e Stūpa and Vihāra of Kanishka I. Calcutta: Asiatic Society.
Dutt, Nalinaksha . “Place of Faith in Buddhism”. Indian Historical Quarterly,
–.
Enomoto, Fumio . “e Formation and Development of the Sarvāstivāda Scriptures”. In T. Yamamoto (ed.) Proceedings of the irty-First International Congress
of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa, –. Tokyo: Tōhō Gakkai.
—— . “On the Formation of the Original Texts of the Chinese Āgamas”. Buddhist
Studies Review,  (): –.
Foucher, Alfred . L’art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhâra, Étude sur les origines de
l’influence classique dans l’art bouddhique de l’Inde et de l’Extrême-Orient. Paris:
Ernest Leroux.
Gnoli, Raniero . e Gilgit Manuscript of the Saṅghabhedavastu. Rome: Istituto
Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, .
Gombrich, Richard F. . “Recovering the Buddha’s Message”. e Buddhist Forum,
: –.
—— . How Buddhism Began, e Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings.
London: Athlone.
—— . “A Visit to Brahmā the Heron”. Journal of Indian Philosophy, : –.
—— . What the Buddha ought. London: Equinox.
Guang Xing . “Filial Piety in Early Buddhism”. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, :
–.
Huntington, John C. . “e Origin of the Buddha Image: Early Image Traditions and the Concept of Buddhadarśanapunyā”. In A.K. Narain (ed.) Studies in
Buddhist Art in South Asia, –. New Delhi: Kanak Publications.
Huntington, Susan L. . “Early Buddhist Art and the eory of Aniconism”. Art
Journal, : –.
—— . e Art of Ancient India, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. Boston: Weatherhill.
Jones, Dhivan omas . “Why Did Brahmā Ask the Buddha to Teach?”. Buddhist
Studies Review,  (): –.
Kedārnāth, Pandit . e Nātyaśāstra
by Śrī Bharatamuni. Bombay: Satyabhāmā.
bāī Pān. durang
.
Kiblinger, Kristin Beise . Buddhist Inclusivism, Attitudes Towards Religious Others. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Konow, Sten . “Note on Vajrapāni-Indra”.
Acta Orientalia, (): –.
.
Kurita, Isao . Gandharan Art I, e Buddha’s Life Story. Tokyo: Nigensha Publishing.

 – ’ 
Lamotte, Étienne . “Vajrapāni
. en Inde”. In Mélanges de Sinologie offerts à Monsieur Paul Demiéville, –. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Lee, Junghee . “e Origins and Development of the Pensive Bodhisattva Images
of Asia”. Artibus Asiae,  (–): –.
Lefmann, S. . Lalita Vistara, Leben und Lehre des Çâkya-Buddha. Halle: Verlag
der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
Linrothe, Rob . “Inquiries into the Origin of the Buddha Image, A Review”. East
and West,  (–): –.
Liu Zhen (刘震) . Dhyānāni tapaś ca, 禅定与苦修. Shanghai: Gǔjíchūbǎnshè.
Lü Cheng . “Āgama”. In G.P. Malalasekera (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, 
(): –. Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs.
Luczanits, Christian . Gandhara, Das buddhistische Erbe Pakistans; Legenden,
Klöster und Paradiese. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern.
Mayeda [=Maeda], Egaku . “Japanese Studies on the Schools of the Chinese
Āgamas”. In H. Bechert (ed.) Zur Schulzugehörigkeit von Werken der HīnayānaLiteratur, Erster Teil, –. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
McGovern, Nathan . “Brahmā: An Early and Ultimately Doomed Attempt at a
Brahmanical Synthesis”. Journal of Indian Philosophy, (preliminary online version).
Minh Chau, ich . e Chinese Madhyama Āgama and the Pāli Majjhima
Nikāya. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Meisig, Konrad . “A Translation of the Chinese Kevaddhasutta, Together with
the Critical Apparatus of the Pāli Text”. In F. Wilhelm (ed.) Festschri Dieter
Schlingloff, Zur Vollendung des . Lebensjahres dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen, –. Reinbek: Wezler.
Mertens, Annemarie . “Konstruierte Realitäten – soziale Wahrheiten: Die indische Identitätsmanagementstrategie ‘Inklusivismus’, Eine Skizze”. In I. Bocken
et al. (eds.) e Persistent Challenge, Religion, Truth and Scholarship, Essays
in Honor of Klaus Klostermaier, –. Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker Publishing.
Nakamura, Hajime . Gotama Buddha, A Biography Based on the Most Reliable
Texts. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Co, .
Ñānamoli,
Bhikkhu /. e Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Bhikkhu
.
Bodhi (ed.). Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Nichols, Michael . “e Two Faces of Deva: e Māra/Brahmā Tandem”, Religions of South Asia, (): –.
Norman, K. R. /. “eravāda Buddhism and Brahmanical Hinduism”. In
K.R. Norman (ed.) Collected Papers, : –. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

 – ’ 
Oberhammer, Gerhard . Inklusivismus, Eine Indische Denkform. Wien: Gerold.
Oberlies, omas . “Ein bibliographischer Überblick über die kanonischen Texte
der Śrāvakayāna-Schulen des Buddhismus (ausgenommen der des Mahāvihāraeravāda)”. Wiener Zeitschri für die Kunde Südasiens, : –.
Rhi Juhyung . “From Bodhisattva to Buddha: e Beginning of Iconic Representation in Buddhist Art”. Artibus Asiae, (/): –.
Ruegg, David Seyfort . e Symbiosis of Buddhism with Brahmanism/Hinduism
in South Asia and of Buddhism with ‘Local Cults’ in Tibet and the Himalayan Region. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaen.
Sander, Lore and E. Waldschmidt . Sanskrithandschrien aus den Turfanfunden,
Teil . Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Santoro, Arcangela . “Il Vajrapāni
. nell’arte del Gandhāra: Ricerca iconografica
ed interpretativa”. Rivista degli Studi Orientali, : –.
Schlingloff, Dieter . “Zum Mahāgovindasūtra”. Mitteilungen des Instituts für
Orientforschung, : –.
—— . “Erzählung und Bild: Die Darstellungsformen von Handlungsabläufen
in der europäischen und indischen Kunst”. Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie, : –.
Schmithausen, Lambert . “Man and World: On the Myth of Origin of the Aggaññasutta”. Supplement to the Bulletin of the Research Institute of Bukkyo University, –.
Senart, Émile . Le Mahāvastu, Texte sanscrit publié pour la première fois et
accompagné d’introductions et d’un commentaire. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale,
.
—— . “Vajrapāni
. dans les sculptures du Gandhāra”. Actes du XIVe Congrès International des Orientalistes, : –. Paris: Ernst Leroux.
Sukthankar, Vishnu S. . e Mahābhārata, For the First Time Critically Edited,
e Ādiparvan. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, .
van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, Johanna Engelberta . e ‘Scythian’ Period, An Approach to the History, Art, Epigraphy and Palaeography of Northern India From
the st Century B.C. to the rd Century A.D. Leiden: Brill.
Vogel, Jean Philippe . “Études du sculpture bouddhique: IV, Le Vajrapāni
. grécobouddhique”. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient,  (): –.
von Hinüber, Oskar /. A Handbook of Pāli Literature. Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal.
Waldschmidt, Ernst . Das Mahāparinirvānasūtra,
Text in Sanskrit und Tibetisch.
.
Berlin: Akademie Verlag, .

 – ’ 
——. Das Mahāvadānasūtra, Ein kanonischer Text über die sieben letzten Buddhas. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, .
—— . Das Catuspari
satsūtra,
Eine kanonische Lehrschri über die Begründung
.
.
der buddhistischen Gemeinde. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
—— . “Central Asian Sūtra Fragments and their Relation to the Chinese Āgamas”. In H. Bechert (ed.) e Language of the Earliest Buddhist Tradition, –
. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Walters, Jonathan S. . “Suttas as History: Four Approaches to the Sermon on the
Noble Quest (Ariyapariyesana-sutta)”. History of Religions,  (): –.
Webster, David . “e Weary Buddha or Why the Buddha Nearly Couldn’t be
Bothered”. Buddhist Studies Review,  (): –.
Weller, Friedrich . Brahmajālasūtra, Tibetischer und Mongolischer Text. Leipzig:
Otto Harrassowitz.
Wille, Klaus . Sanskrithandschrien aus den Turfanfunden, Teil . Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner.
Zin, Monika . Ajanta, Handbuch der Malereien, , Devotionale und ornamentale
Malereien, Vol.  Interpretationen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Zhou, Chungyang . Das Kaivartisūtra der neuentdeckten Dīrghāgama-Handschri,
Eine Edition und Rekonstruktion des Textes. MA thesis, Göttingen: Georg-August
Universität.

Ambitions and Negotiations: e Growing Role of Laity in
Twentieth-century Chinese Buddhism
Eyal Aviv
[email protected]
is article highlights the growing role of laity in th century Chinese Buddhism. Like other Buddhist traditions in Asia, Chinese Buddhists were affected by the changes brought about by modernization. While lay Buddhists have played an important role throughout Chinese Buddhist history,
during the modern period they assumed prerogatives that had been traditionally limited to monastics. e article explores three exemplary cases: a
Tantric priest (Wáng Hóngyuàn), a scholar (Oūyáng Jìngwú) and a political leader (Zhào Púchū). e article examines the reaction of the Saṅgha
to these lay Buddhists and their lasting impact on Modern Buddhism in
China.
. Introduction
is paper will focus on the changing role of the laity in late Qīng and early Republican China. Its main objective is to investigate the thesis that the modern
period saw an unprecedented shi in lay-monastic dynamics, whereby laypeople
took more liberty to interpret, practice and conceptualize Buddhism independently of, and sometimes at odds with, the Saṅgha. e so-called “laicization”
thesis has been clearly articulated, among others, by Helen Hardacre:
“e modernization of Buddhist societies has brought sweeping
changes. e extension of the franchise and expanded political participation in secular life colored religious life, creating the expectation that laity should be able to influence the character of Buddhist institutions. e spread of literacy has enabled laity to read
.  (): –. ©  Eyal Aviv
 –   
and interpret sacred scripture with increasing independence from
the ordained. Higher education hones a critical spirit and encourages
skepticism regarding clergy’s preeminence over the laity and their
monopoly over funerals and other rituals. e prestige of science and
rationality in modernizing societies further nurtures a critical view
of traditional religious beliefs, practices, and institutions.” (Hardacre
, )
Has that been the case in modern China? is paper argues that while it
would be a historical mistake to talk about the demise of monastic authority in
the modern period, we do see a significant growth in the role of the laity in modern Chinese Buddhism. is growth is a part of processes related to the emergence of complex cross-cultural and global relationships with other Asian powers
and with the West. Chinese Buddhism thus shared with other Buddhist traditions, especially those of Japan and South Asia, some characteristics that enabled
lay Buddhist influence to grow. ese include concerns, whether realistic or not,
about threats from colonialism and imperialism, and also from growing secularist
tendencies. In addition, we see a shared concern for authenticity, and a tension
between continuity and rapture in these reform movements, many of which were
led by lay people.
In order to establish my claim, I intend to focus on three case studies of laymen
with remarkable careers: a Tantric priest, a scholar and a leader. Each case study
represents a different aspect of the religious authority that the laity claimed in this
period: the right to give initiation and perform rituals, the right to authority on
doctrinal matters, and the right to lead the Saṅgha’s institutions.
rough the case studies I wish to demonstrate that () Chinese lay Buddhists
assumed leadership roles they rarely claimed in pre-modern times; () Lay dynamics in China were closely related, at least in the early part of the th century,
to the changing role of religion and Buddhism globally and in Japan in particular;
and finally that () Lay Buddhism in the modern period is closely related to historical and social dynamics in modern China. I will begin with a brief overview
of the laity’s role in Chinese Buddhism.

At the congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies in Taiwan, June , these
shared characteristics came up repeatedly in a panel dedicated to the growing role of the laity across
cultures in the modern period.

 –   
. e Historical Role of the Laity in Chinese Buddhism
What do I mean by lay Buddhists? is is by no means an easy term to define.
As Holmes Welch noted, “e director of the  census in Hong Kong was unable to solve it (i.e. the question of what a Buddhist devotee is) and therefore no
entry on religion was included” (Welch , ). So what is a lay Buddhist?
Welch continues, “Suppose we asked, ‘do you believe in the Buddha (信佛)?’ In
that case most of the rural population of China would answer in the affirmative…
If we asked: ‘Do you go to worship at Buddhist temples?’ almost all would answer
that they did” (Welch , ). What about those who worship in other temples too? One cannot exclude all religious hybridity when discussing so-called
Buddhists in China. For this paper I will define lay Buddhists as people who took
their Buddhist identity a step beyond occasional worship. e three cases below
are laypeople who made Buddhism their main vocation in life.
Devout Buddhist laypeople who have had a remarkable career are not new in
Chinese history. Chinese laity began to organize into societies for recitation of
the Buddha’s name already during the Six Dynasties (–) period. Some of
the greatest poets of the Táng Dynasty, such as Wáng Wéi and Bái Jūyì were lay
Buddhists. Lay Buddhists such as Lı̌ Tōngxuán (李通玄) contributed to the development of Chinese Buddhist thought, and layman Péng (龐居士) established
his name as an ideal Enlightened Chán lay Buddhist, whose wisdom recalled that
of Vimalakīrti.
It seems safe to argue that throughout Chinese Buddhist history, elite members of the literati both shaped and were shaped by their association with Buddhist
monks. In the Míng Dynasty, a large number of literati immersed themselves in

is raises a broader problem of religious identity in China, which is more fluid than has been
traditional in the West. However, in  the Pew Research Center published a study concluding that: “Based on interviews with more than , Americans age  and older, the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey finds that religious affiliation in the U.S. is both very diverse and extremely
fluid.” http://pewresearch.org/pubs//united-states-religion, http://pewresearch.org/pubs//
united-states-religion (Accessed May, nd ). In another research published in the BBC and
study religious patterns in  Western countries researchers argued that, “e study found a steady
rise in those claiming no religious affiliation.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment- (Accessed May, nd ).
One can argue that in recent years religious identity in the West became more fluid as well and
that one can see more hybrid forms of religious practice (so called Jewish-Buddhists, or a Christian
who is also a Zen practitioner, Christian Yoga etc.).

For more see Gimello .

For more see Halperin  and Gregory .

 –   
the study of Buddhist scriptures, following the lead of Wáng Yángmíng (–
). According to Wú Jiāng, some of Wáng Yángmíng’s followers incorporated
Buddhist teachings into their Confucian teachings. It was a time of fascination
with Buddhist scholasticism and there was a “prevalent Chán craze in the literati
culture” (Wú , ). e Chán Buddhist tradition developed a highly sophisticated corpus of literature. Consequently, Míng literati read Chán literature for
their leisure, to experience the “joy of Chán” (Wú , ). Sometimes they
challenged the monks’ understanding (Wú , -) and even offered teaching
as Chán teachers (Wú , -).
What, if anything, had changed in the modern period? Some may argue that
not much changed, that the dynamics in the Qīng Dynasty and onward are simply
the maturation of earlier dynamics. However, I would like to suggest that lay Buddhists not only increased their prominence during the late Qīng Dynasty, but also
moved into new territories that they avoided in the past. For example, Holmes
Welch noted that towards the end of the Qīng and the Republican period most of
the lay associations were founded by lay initiatives, unlike the lay associations of
the pre-modern period, which were founded mostly by monks (Welch , ).
Welch also noted that laypeople began to participate in activities that were traditionally restricted to monks, sitting in meditation sessions with the monks in the
meditation halls and the halls for the recitation of the Buddha name. Laypeople
also began to participate in rituals, one of the monopolies of the clergy and an
important source of income for the Saṅgha. e first case study is an example of
how laypeople in the th century insisted not only on having a role in rituals but
also on officiating at them.
. e lay Ācārya Wáng Hóngyuàn 王弘願 (-)
.. Biography
Wáng was a controversial lay Buddhist who was a th generation Ācārya 阿闍
梨 (which literally means “teacher”, but is here defined as a Tantric priest) in the
lineage of the Japanese Shingon School. He is a part of the long esoteric Buddhist
tradition in China (密教), a tradition that in the early th century enjoyed a remarkable comeback via Japan. Wáng’s early career did not suggest his future as

e history of this school in China is fascinating and has received well-deserved treatment by
scholars in recent years (for more see Orzech, Sørensen and Payne (eds), ). Scholars such as
Robert Gimello, Charles Orzech and Henrik Sørensen show that the history of this movement in

 –   
a propagator of esoteric Buddhism. He received a traditional Confucian education, and in  passed his Xiùcái 秀才 degree, the first degree in the imperial
examination system. He later taught and served as principal at a middle school
in Cháozhōu, Guǎngdōng. When he was in his ’s, Wáng had doubts regarding the Confucian critique of Buddhism and the more he read about Buddhism
the more he found himself drawn to it. In , Wáng published a translation of
the Japanese Shingon school priest, Gonda Raifu’s 權田雷斧 (-) work,
Mìzōng gāngyào 密宗綱要 (Essentials of the Esoteric School). Aer the translation, and perhaps as a result of it, Gonda arrived at Cháozhōu in  and gave
Wáng tantric initiation (abhiseka
灌頂).
.
In , Wáng le for Japan, where he received the title of Ācārya. He later returned to China and established the China Esoteric Buddhist Rebirth Association
(震旦密教重興會). He consequently began to propagate the esoteric tradition,
teach, and publish a magazine called “Records of Teaching Esoteric Buddhism”
(密教講習錄). In , Wáng began conducting initiation ceremonies in cities
such as Cháozhōu, Guǎngzhōu, Shàntóu and Hong Kong, where thousands became his disciples (Dèng and Chén , ). In , he became the director
of the newly established Jiěxíng Vihāra 解行精舍 and lectured on Buddhism in
Sun-Yat Sen University. In , he also established the Shàntóu Esoteric Buddhist Rebirth Association (汕頭密教重興會) and published a magazine called
“e Lamp of the World” (世燈). A prolific writer, he translated his teacher’s
writings, commented on esoteric Buddhist texts and wrote original works of his
own.
.. Wáng Hóngyuàn and the debate with Tàixū
Before his return from Japan as Ācārya, Wáng was a part of the reformer-monk
Tàixū’s circle. Tàixū (太虛 -) is known especially for his relentless efforts
to modernize the Saṅgha. Buddhists during the Republican period understood
that times had changed and that they had to change with them. ey also understood that the tide of change signified a risk to the stability and prosperity of
Buddhism in China. One of the ways in which reformers such as Tàixū sought
to combat these developments was to restore East Asian Buddhism to its state of
glory during the Táng, when Chinese Buddhism was believed to be at its prime.
China is much more complex than the traditional narrative of “popularity in the Tang and a later
decline”. (Shì Dōngchū , ).

For a list of publications see Dèng and Chén , .

 –   
He thought that modern Buddhism should be a unified form of Buddhism, nonsectarian in its approach (Welch , -), presumably because internal debate
and arguments would weaken the Saṅgha facing external detractors.
One of the schools that were popular during the Táng was the Esoteric School.
In  Tàixū began his attempt to revive the esoteric tradition through promoting Esoteric Buddhist literature in his journal Hǎicháoyīn. He encouraged monks
to study in Tibet and invited Tantric masters to initiate his students (Clower ).
In , he opened the Buddhist College for the Study of Tibetan Buddhism and
Language. Students who enrolled there were taught Esoteric Buddhism by the
Tantric master Dàyǒng (大勇 –), who was also the principal of the institution (Welch , -). Tàixū initially supported Wáng’s interest in the
esoteric tradition. In the first letter he wrote to Wáng, Tàixū congratulated him,
saying, “Your translation of Gonda Raifu’s two volumes of A orough Explanation of the Man. dala
was published in Hǎicháoyīn and it is most welcome” (e
.
Complete Works of Tàixū, hereaer TQS p). In his second letter, Tàixū continued his praise: “e more published the better, and this is my hope. But looking at what has been published so far, I am not yet satisfied; I am looking forward
to your great work!” (TQS p-)
However, shortly aerwards the tone changed and the enthusiasm of Tàixū
shied to cautious critique. e problem for Tàixū seemed to be that his plan for
a humble revival of the esoteric tradition was too successful. Tàixū’s main goal
was not to promote esoteric Buddhism but to modernize Buddhism. Modernizing Buddhism meant purging it of what many at the time considered superstitious
elements (or to put it in the words of Holmes Welch, from “a mixture of Brahmanism and magical hocus-pocus” Welch , ), many of which could be found
abundantly in the esoteric tradition. As a result of the revival effort, the esoteric
tradition did not become the tamed tradition he envisioned but so widely popular that it threatened to overshadow the whole syncretic project of Tàixū. It was
at that point that Tàixū’s support for the esoteric tradition waned, and he became
critical towards Wáng Hóngyuàn.
What were the main complaints of Tàixū and some of his followers against
Wáng? In a letter he wrote to Wáng, Tàixū enumerated some of them.
Aer reading your essay “Letter of Respectfully Informing Buddhist Scholars in China,” I learned about the visit of the Japanese

Tàixū also included the translation by Wáng in the curriculum of his seminary.

 –   
Archbishop [Gonda] Raifu to China. is is indeed a significant
karmic event. I also heard about the revival of the Esoteric tradition’s spirit [in China], much of which is thanks to your translation of
[Gonda] Raifu’s writings. [Gonda] Raifu indeed established himself
as a great scholar among Japanese scholars of the esoteric tradition.
However, despite appropriating the title of a monastic archbishop, in
fact he does not practice as a monk. I heard from Master Enka (演
華師), that [Gonda] Raifu still has concubines in his seventies. I’ve
heard that all Japanese clerics are like that, and that it has become
a popular practice. is behavior is not better than the certain Jōdo
Shinshū master whom you criticized [in the past]. [People like Raifu]
merely talk the noble path of the Esoteric tradition practice, but do
not practice it; they can only be regarded as philosophers but not as
Shingon Ācāryas.
erefore, in my opinion, [while visiting], [Gonda] Raifu should
give lectures around China, like John Dewey and Bertrand Russell,
but must not perform abhiseka
rituals. I now question you, what do
.
you think? (TQS p-)
On the surface, Tàixū seems to be concerned with the morality of the Japanese
Shingon priests, but there are two other issues that bothered him. First, Raifu and
other Japanese Buddhists arrived in China supported by Japanese imperialism.
e infamous document of the twenty-one demands (二十一條), included a demand that Japanese Buddhists should have the right to conduct missionary work
in China. Japanese imperialists of that period attempted to use Buddhism as a
“unifying” ideology to form a pan-Asian front in order to face European dominance. Needless to say, the Pan-Asian entity would be ruled by Japan (Yú ,
).
e second concern, more relevant to our discussion, is the risk that under
Japanese influence the boundaries between monks and laypeople would become
murky. Tàixū saw the problem emerging, perhaps, when Gonda Raifu became
the teacher of the monk Tèsōng (特松 -). Traditionally, it was not acceptable for a monk to be mentored by a layperson, only vice versa (Bianchi ,

僧正 is a highest title a Shingon priest can achieve. It literally means something like “Saṅgha’s
chief ”, or “chief monk”, and Tàixū is criticizing the fact that they use the term monk or Saṅgha
without actually being Buddhist monks.

See Spence , -.

 –   
-) Wáng’s rituals were another ominous sign for Tàixū. Welch noted: “It was
far less common for laymen to appropriate the titles of monks than to appropriate
their function (Welch , ). As is evident from Wáng’s case, one of the problems with his Buddhist career was that he did both; he used the title of Ācārya
and at the same time performed the initiation ceremony and by that attracted
thousands of followers.
at led to an escalation in the tone of Tàixū’s criticism. On a later occasion,
he replied to a question about a criticism of Wáng:
is [criticism] was incurred by Wáng Shīyù’s (王師愈 Wáng’s original name) own fault of arrogance and pride. He is merely a mediocre
Confucian scholar rejecting Buddhist [orthodoxy]. He translated
two books by the Shingon Shingi-ha (the new interpretation subschool) master Gonda Raifu and gained the favor of Gonda. [Consequently], he broke the laws of the Buddhas and the regulations of
the patriarchs. He received an initiation [from Gonda], and then regarded himself as a rare and invaluable commodity and arrogantly
thought to elevate [Gonda] Raifu’s teachings as surpassing all other
Buddhist dharma-gates in China and abroad. He also erroneously
thought that the upāsaka resides among the six communities of monks
etc. and that [the upāsaka] leads the seven communities [of the Buddha’s disciples]. is is the reason that he provoked the monastic
rebuke. In addition, Wáng Shīyù does not know how to admit mistakes. He does not recognize the words “humility and repentance”.
He unceasingly provokes wrangling with others; consequently he is
harshly scolded by [people] from all over. (TQS p)
What was Wáng’s reaction to Tàixū’s concerns about erasing the traditional
difference between monks and laity? He seemed to be quite indifferent. He said,
“ere is no distinction between monks and laity in my school. All laypeople are
dharma vessels, who carry forward the great Dharma, and are monuments of
the attainment of Buddhahood ” (Yú , ).

Needless to say for Shingon followers Gonda Raifu was not a monk in the traditional sense, but
also not a layperson, borrowing from Richard Jaffe he was “neither monk nor layman.” For Tàixū
there was nothing that separates Gonda Raifu from other ordinary laypeople, excluding perhaps
the pretense to be a cleric.

Literally stūpas.

Literally Buddhahood in this very body.

 –   
Tàixū was definitely not the only Buddhist to be concerned about the ritualistic prerogatives that Wáng assumed. Other Buddhists wrote treatises denouncing
him, among them Zhoū Yuánxìng’s e Danger of Chinese Esoteric Buddhism (中
國佛教密宗危矣) and the monk Dànyún’s Discussing Wáng Hóngyuàn’s Transgressions from the Perspective of Exoteric and Esoteric Buddhism (從顯密問題上
說到王弘願犯戒). A prominent critic, the monk Yìnguāng, stated, “e layman
Wáng Hóngyuàn, despite the fact that he has deep faith in Esoteric Buddhism,
[and despite the fact that] it yielded some results, since he began to misinterpret
the message, has missed the meaning and failed to understand it. He should continue his reading of the scriptures, and only then will he recognize his mistake.
Now, despite the fact that his skills began to gain some momentum, it is like flames
rising from a weak and empty fire (Yú , -).
Monastic critique seemed to do little to curb the popularity of Wáng initiations, but they were not the only challenge to monastic authority. Around the
same time, a layman with a similar background to that of Wáng made an important contribution to the critical study of Buddhism in China. e layman Oūyáng
Jìngwú, through his Inner Studies Institute, challenged some longheld assumptions about Buddhist doctrine and further challenged the Saṅgha’s authority.
. e scholar Oūyáng Jìngwú 歐陽竟無 (-)
While Wáng challenged the monastic prerogatives in performing religious initiations, Oūyáng challenged the monastic prerogatives in at least three different
ways. () He argued against central doctrines and important schools in East Asian
Buddhism, considering them inauthentic. () He challenged views that established monastic superiority. () He played a crucial role in an attempt to exert
control over the monastic estate in China through the establishment of a Buddhist Association.
.. Biography
Oūyáng Jìngwú was born in  in Yíhuáng county (宜黃), Jiāngxī province.
His original name was Oūyáng Jiàn (歐陽漸) and courtesy name Oūyáng Jìnghú

is is a metaphor from Chinese medicine which refers to a condition resulting from general
energy deficiency and inner fire hyperactivity. Yìnguāng compares Wáng to someone who produces
efficacy from an unhealthy source.

 –   
(歐陽鏡湖). Like Wáng, Oūyáng came from an educated family and was tutored from an early age in traditional Confucian education. Prepared to continue
his family’s literati heritage, he was trained in the Chéngzhū orthodox branch of
Confucianism. At the same time Oūyáng was also trained in the methods of the
Evidential Scholarship movement (Kǎozhèngxúe 考證學), a Qīng Dynasty movement that emphasized a critical approach to the study of the Confucian (and nonConfucian) classics. It is this critical spirit that he later applied to the study of
Buddhist scriptures and through which he challenged some of the fundamental
mainstream and monastic assumptions regarding the Buddhist teachings.
Like Wáng, Oūyáng converted to Buddhism in his adulthood. A major factor
in his reluctance to convert to Buddhism was undoubtedly his Confucian heritage, to which he was committed ideologically but also emotionally, as it was his
family heritage. Oūyáng finally converted to Buddhism aer his meeting with
Yáng Wénhùi, the so-called father of modern Buddhism in China. Yáng convinced Oūyáng that there is more to Buddhism than its East Asian tradition and
encouraged him to study the Yogācāra tradition and the tradition of Buddhist
logic. Yáng argued that without understanding the Yogācāra tradition it would
be impossible to understand Buddhism (Chéng , ), a view that Oūyáng
maintained throughout his later career.
e study of Yogācāra became more available thanks to Yáng Wénhùi’s success
in retrieving hundreds of volumes of Buddhist texts from Japan, volumes that
had been lost in China for about a millennium. Prime among these texts were
fundamental commentaries on Yogācāra and Buddhist logic, texts that provided
the Chinese-speaking world with a renewed encounter with the Indian scholastic
tradition aer years of being marginalized in the East Asian Buddhist curriculum.
Oūyáng was known among Yáng Wénhùi’s circle as the Yogācāra expert. He
later established his own institution of Buddhist learning, the Inner Studies Institute (Zhīnà Neìxuéyuàn 支那內學院). rough this institution he taught and
introduced Buddhism to some of the most prominent intellectuals of the early
part of the th century, such as Liáng Qı̌chāo, Liáng Shùmíng and Cài Yuánpéi.
His Yogācāra studies oen brought him into conflict with conservative Buddhists, many of whom were monks. In the next section I shall briefly discuss
Oūyáng’s challenge to orthodox Chinese Buddhism, which he deemed as partially
inauthentic. I shall then discuss his institutional challenge to the Saṅgha, and his
unsuccessful attempt to assume control over the Saṅgha’s establishment. At that

He changed his name to Jìngwú when he converted to Buddhism in his s.

 –   
time, the idea that a layman, and a radical at that, could oversee the Saṅgha’s estate
was shocking. As we will see below, this scenario became a reality with the career
of Zhào Púchū, when the Chinese Buddhist Association was reestablished aer
the Communists took over.
.. Oūyáng’s challenge to Buddhist Orthodoxy
Oūyáng’s challenge to Buddhist orthodoxy extended beyond his individual work.
As the head of the Inner Studies Institute, he trained the next generation of lay
Buddhists, who contributed to the critique of mainstream Chinese Buddhist doctrines and practices. Some of the disciples’ critiques were even more analytical
and precise than those of Oūyáng himself. Oūyáng can be credited with introducing a critical approach to the study of Buddhism which he inherited from his
Confucian education. His understanding of the Buddhist teaching underwent
various developments. In his long career his doctrinal preferences evolved beyond the Yogācāra tradition (he also studied the Madhyamaka and continued to
write on Confucianism); nonetheless, Yogācāra always remained his benchmark
to judge the authenticity of the tradition. He said:
If one wishes to dispel the…obstacles [for Chinese Buddhism], one
must enter the gates of the Yogācāra teaching. e Yogācāra teaching is a skilful means; it is the understanding of the correct principles. A scholar who investigates it will be able clearly to understand
the true principle. He will be able to cure the obstacle of vague and
unsystematic thinking. (Oūyáng , )
Judging by this benchmark he found much to criticize within the Chinese
Buddhist tradition. e most fundamental error was the teaching that can be
located in texts such as the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (大乘起信論
hereaer AFM). e AFM has been controversial since its appearance in China
during the sixth century. However, during the Táng Dynasty, the AFM’s popularity grew and it was accepted by most mainstream Buddhists as an authentic text.
is was especially true in Huáyán circles. e text remained foundational for
East Asian Buddhist thought, as evidenced by more than  commentaries that
were written to explain its intricate system to generations of Buddhists.

Writers such as Lǚ Chéng and Wáng Ēnyáng.
For more see Aviv,  and Chéng, .

Literally wéishì and fǎxiàng.


 –   
It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss at length the teachings of the
AFM or Oūyáng’s critique of it; nonetheless an example may illustrate the kind
of objection Oūyáng made to it. e AFM’s teaching can be contextualized in a
larger debate on whether the mind is fundamentally pure or impure. e AFM
offered a synthesis, that is, the mind has two aspects – the pure and the impure.
Using the technical language of the AFM, the author of the text argued that there
is only one mind but that it has two different aspects, “mind as suchness” (心真
如) and the “mind that arises and ceases,” or samsāric
mind (心生滅). e two
.
aspects are two manifestations of one and the same mind, two sides of the same
coin.
For Oūyáng, this unique teaching was not confirmed by any credible Yogācāra
text. He argued that fundamental to the Buddhist teaching is the notion of correct knowledge (Skt. samyagjñāna, Ch. 正智). Correct knowledge must have an
object that it “knows” or cognizes. An object must be something that can serve
as a cause. In the case of the AFM, however, the object collapses into the subject.
Oūyáng argued that this is a doctrinal error.
e collapse of suchness and the subjective mind into one, as well as other
errors, was consequently adopted by the main schools of East Asian Buddhism
(Tiāntāi and Huáyán schools) and further distanced Chinese Buddhism from what
Oūyáng saw as authentic Buddhism. In an attempt to settle seeming contradictions within the Buddhist teaching, these schools created a classification system
known as pànjiào (判教) that judged the subtlety of the various teachings. Overemphasis on pànjiào classification created the false assumption that there are several teachings within Buddhism, whereas the Buddhadharma is essentially one.
ese teachings and classifications eventually informed Buddhist practice, which
consequently took the wrong turn. Oūyáng argued that at the end “they [i.e. the
indigenous East Asian schools] do not find the gateway to the practice of meditation” (Ouyang , ).
From the standpoint of practice, no other school shaped Buddhist practice
in China more than the Chán School. Here, Oūyáng criticized Chán Buddhist
anti-intellectual sentiments. He held that Chán Buddhism should be commended

See Tn.a-.
See for example when Oūyáng argues: “Both schools differentiate [the teachings of the Buddha]
based on [different] concepts. [But, in fact] there is no difference in the meaning of the teachings.”
(Ouyang Jingwu , ).


 –   
for its Mādhyamika tendencies but its adherents must leave behind their antiscriptural rhetoric. Oūyáng argued:<
Since the School of Chán entered China, its blind adherents [mistakenly] understood the Buddhadharma to mean ‘Point directly to the
fundamental mind, do not rely on words and letters, see your nature
and become a Buddha.’ Why should one attach oneself to name and
words? Little do they realize that the high attainment of Chán followers only happens among those who combine reason with the sharp
faculties of superior wisdom…they discard the previous scriptures
of the sages of yore and the excellent and refined words of the worthy ones of old, which lead to the decline in the true meaning of the
Buddhadharma (Oūyáng , ).
Oūyáng was greatly concerned with this decline. How can the Buddhist tradition be dependent on ignorant and deluded monastic leadership?
.. Oūyáng’s challenge to monastic prerogatives
As we saw from the dynamics between Tàixū and Wáng Hóngyuàn, there are
certain assumptions in lay-monastic relationships regarding prerogatives that are
available to the monastic community by virtue of their pure life, whereas they are
not available to lay followers. Oūyáng rejected this presupposition and argued
that from the Mahāyāna perspective it is a mistake. In a famous essay, he outlined
ten mistakes he found in respect to the supposed monastic prerogatives. Prime
among them is the mistake that only śrāvaka, i.e. ordained monks and nuns, can
be considered as a part of the Saṅgha. is is rejected on two accounts. First,
he argued, central Mahāyāna sūtras such as the Mahāprajñāpāramitā sūtraand
the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, distinguish the śrāvaka saṅghafrom the Bodhisattva
saṅgha. High Bodhisattvas are monks but they are not part of the śrāvaka saṅgha.
Second, more relevant for our concern, is that in the Daśacakra-ksitigarbha
sūtra,a
.
layperson (worldling or pārthagjanika) can hear the preaching of the dharma and
be considered a śramanaon
the lowest level. Kuījī’s (窺基 –) commentary
.
on the sutra explained that in respect to a layperson when “there is no inner discord and one’s external affairs are in harmony, one can be considered part of the
gem of the Saṅgha” (Ouyang , -).
Oūyáng also argued against the assumption that all laypeople are completely
secularized (俗), which in the Buddhist context is understood as someone who

 –   
does not observe any precept. In addition, Oūyáng argued that a layperson could
receive the Bodhisattva precepts. He argued that laypeople could be a field of
merit, serve as teachers and preach the dharma. Finally, he believed that a monk
could seek the teaching of a layperson (Ouyang , -). It is not difficult to
see why prominent monks were outraged by Oūyáng. Yìnguāng once commented,
“Oūyáng Jìngwú is a great king of devils” (Welch , ). Yìnshùn argued that
Oūyáng’s circle “specialized in reviling monks and nuns and starting arguments
between clergy and laity” (Welch , ).
.. Oūyáng and the failed attempt to establish the first Buddhist Association
In March of , Oūyáng petitioned Sun Yat-sen’s newly established government
in Beijing to unite Buddhist institutions under the supervision of a Buddhist Association. e historical context was the growing threats that Buddhist faced to
their institution progressive forces, greedy officials, bandits and warlords. It was
also a response to the attempt to establish Confucianism as a state religion.
e proposal of Oūyáng and his friends provides a vivid picture of the selfconfidence they felt in regard to their own ability to assume leadership over the
Saṅgha.
e Association shall have the right to superintend all properties
belonging to all Buddhist organizations.
e Association shall have the right to reorganize and promote
all Buddhist business affairs.
e Association shall have the right to arbitrate disputes that may
arise between Buddhists and to maintain order among them.
e Association shall have the right to require the assistance of
the National Government in carrying out all the social, missionary,
and philanthropic works stated above.
All activities of the Association within the scope of the law shall
not be interfered with by the Government.
e National Government is requested to insert a special article
in the Constitution to protect the Association aer it has been acknowledged as a lawful organization (Welch , ).

is was an issue with Tèsōng (see page ).

 –   
What is apparent in this proposal is the deep distrust of these lay Buddhists in
the ability of the monastic community to handle effectively the delicate predicament of Buddhism in that period. Welch saw it as no less than “a plan to place
the whole Buddhist establishment in the hands of men who despised the Saṅgha.”
It is this level of distrust between laity and monastic and the attempt not only to
suggest a governing body for the Saṅgha but also to assume the leadership role of
this institution that was novel in the Republican period.
Initially, the charter was approved by Sun Yat-sen’s government, but it provoked a bitter reaction from some of the leading monks at that time. ey established their rival association; consequently Oūyáng’s association dissolved. However, not long aer, another layperson led the Buddhist Association without strong
opposition from the monastic community. To consider the leadership of this man
as a unique case in the history of lay Buddhism in China, the next section will deal
with the career of Zhào Púchū
. e career of Zhào Púchū 趙樸初 (-)
.. Biography
Zhào was one of the most famous Chinese Buddhists in the latter part of the th
century, and succeeded in leading the Saṅgha during the tumultuous decades after the Communists took control over China. Interestingly, unlike the monastic
leaders’ contentions against Wáng and Oūyáng, Zhào’s leadership was accepted by
most. is can be explained by the historical and political context, which changed
radically aer , and by the fact that at the same time as Zhào was a Buddhist,
he was also an advocate of communism. As such he served as a bridge between
the Buddhists and the new state ideology. In China, Zhào is also remembered as
a politician and a social activist. No less important, he was also an appreciated
calligrapher and poet.
He was born to a family of devout Buddhists in Ānhūi province in . When
he was a child his mother oen took him to a Buddhist temple to worship the
Buddha, and that kindled a lifelong commitment to the Buddhist teachings. As a
young man, he enrolled as a student in Dōngwú University (東吳大學) in Sūzhōu.
. While recuperating from an illness that forced him to drop out of school, he began to study Buddhism more seriously. rough family connections he became


See Boorman ,  (vol. ).
Ibid., .

 –   
associated with the Enlightenment Garden (覺園), a center for lay Buddhist activists and Buddhist charity work. ere, at age , he met the eminent Buddhist
teacher, Yuányīng (圓瑛 -), took refuge and studied Buddhist texts with
him.
At the same time Zhào also began to serve as the secretary of the Chinese Buddhist Association (中國佛教協會, hereaer CBA) in Shànghǎi. During the war
with Japan he participated in charity work in the city and aer the war ended, with
the help of others, he founded the Chinese Association for Promoting Democracy
(中國民主促進會).
In the years aer the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, Zhào
increased his participation in political and social activities. He participated in
international conferences and delegations to promote China’s relationship with
other countries, such as Burma and Japan. He also participated in peace related
activities and organizations. For example, he was a delegate to the Conference on
Disarmament and International Cooperation in Stockholm in , was in the
Special Conference of the World Peace Council in Stockholm in  and in the
th World Conference Against the Use of Atomic Bombs in Tokyo in .
.. Zhào Púchū as the leader of the Chinese Buddhist Association
In , Buddhists struggled to secure their position in the new political situation.
e odds were against them. e Communists were not interested in promoting
any religion, but there was not yet any clear sign that it was forbidden. One of the
leading figures in the effort to integrate Buddhism into the new China was a monk
by the name of Jùzàn (– 巨贊). Jùzàn was attracted to Socialism from
an early age and was the ideal person for the job. In fact, he was ordained under
Tàixū to save himself from the Nationalists, who were looking for him because of
his involvement with Communist activities in Shànghǎi.
Jùzàn diligently sent memorandums to chairman Máo seeking to reform the
Saṅgha, but they were repeatedly rejected. However, where Jùzàn failed, Zhào
was more successful in soliciting the cooperation of the new regime. In May of
, he failed at his first attempt to reestablish the CBA on the mainland (e
CBA had been disbanded in .) According to Holmes Welch, Zhào managed
to convince the religious affairs section of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Religious

For more information on Jùzàn’s reforms see Xué Yú  and Welch , -.

 –   
Affairs Division to form the CBA. However, in practice, nothing happened. It
seemed that the ruling Communist party was yet to determine its policy towards
religious institutions (Welch , -).
Finally, in , the CBA was reestablished. Its inaugural meeting was held
in May, exactly two years aer Zhào’s initial attempt. At first, both Jùzàn and
Zhào had a leading role in the newly formed CBA, but Jùzàn’s position gradually
diminished, whereas Zhào’s influence grew. Zhào played a major role in laying
the foundations for the future of the CBA (Welch , ).
e relationship between laity and monks was a part of the CBA’s agenda. For
example, Zhào announced that the CBA would have no ordinary members. He
argued, “ordinary members would lead to inequalities between the Saṅgha and
the laity” (Welch , ). e CBA was then not an organization for Buddhists
but functioned more as a mediating body between the Saṅgha and the state, and
its leaders, both monks and laymen, were selected. While this move was probably
politically motivated, it was another indication that during Communist rule laity
would not be assigned a back seat on the Buddhist bus. While in name Yuányīng
and then Sherab Gyatso headed the CBA, Holmes Welch argued that in fact Zhào,
who served as secretary-general, was the true head (Welch , ).
e fact that a layman’s influence overshadowed that of monks was uncommon in Chinese Buddhism, even in the early years of the PRC. In response to
Zhào’s leadership Jùzàn complained: “According to Buddhist scriptures, monks
and nuns who have le lay life are in charge of the Dharma, whereas Buddhist
devotees who remain laymen merely protect the Dharma” (Welch , ). is
was a traditional view held by most of the monastic Buddhists. Monks should
decide the governance of the Saṅgha and the laity should support the monastic
leadership.
Jùzàn was eventually sentenced to prison in  as a counter-revolutionary.
He was released only aer the Cultural Revolution in  and died four years
later. Zhào’s lot was better, despite the fact that even he suffered a setback during
the Cultural Revolution. Already in the early years of the CBA, prior to the Cultural Revolution, Zhào was well aware of Buddhists’ vulnerable position and of the
need to negotiate between a secular regime that was hostile towards religions and
Buddhist interests. For example, in response to some Buddhist grievances, Zhào,
the de facto leader of the largest Buddhist organization in China, did not protest to
the regime in an attempt to ease the tensions, but instead sent the Buddhists to do
some soul searching. He argued that some of the problems occurred because “the

 –   
personal conduct of Buddhists has gotten out of line… the first thing Buddhists
should do is to ask whether they themselves have been patriotic and law-abiding
and clearly distinguished between the enemy and themselves, between the heterodox and the orthodox” (Welch , ). Perhaps due to this kind of skillful
navigation between the Buddhist community’s needs and the hostile political environment, the CBA survived until .
Like many other leaders and intellectuals, Zhào suffered a humiliating fate
during the troubled years of the Cultural Revolution. However, he was invited
back to public service by Prime Minister Zhōu Ēnlái when he heard about Zhào’s
predicament and was again appointed the head of the Buddhist Association. When
the scholar John Strong visited China in , he was hosted in the headquarters
of the newly established CBA in Guǎngjì temple by Zhào Púchū (Sarah Strong
and John Strong ). Zhào continued to lead the CBA until his death during a
period of remarkable growth of Buddhism in China.
Zhào’s leadership, as far as I could gather, was remarkable in how uncontroversial it was. Zhào’s pragmatic approach in the years aer the reestablishment
of the CBA probably contributed to his success. Unlike the revolutionary young
Zhào, the old Zhào seemed to see the monastic community as the “upholders
of the Buddhadharma 住持佛法.” However, according to Zhào, while in eravāda Buddhism there is a fundamental difference between monks and laity, in
China (beyond the formal display of respect) the distinction is “not that strict”
(Zhào, from his Common Q& A about Buddhism). He seemed less interested
in the question of equality and more focused on the complementary roles of the
laity and the monastic within the Buddhist community. When asked about the
growing role of the laity, Zhào answered, “In Burma, they think that the present
age marks the period when the power will shi from the Saṅgha to the laity. But
whether this is the direction Chinese Buddhism will take, and whether Buddhism
with no monks at all is still Buddhism, it is still too early to say” (Sarah Strong and
John Strong , ). Zhào seemed to believe that if monks, nuns and laity each
fulfill their respective roles, Buddhism could become a powerful force in creating
a better society and a more peaceful world.
Conclusions
I began this paper by quoting by Helen Hardacre’s argument that modern trends
have affected the relations between the laity and monastic communities in many of
the Buddhist traditions in Asia. e results have been () a larger participation in

 –   
shaping the future trajectory of Buddhist institutions; () a confidence that they, as
laypeople, can interpret the sacred teachings, even at variance with the monastic
interpretation; () a growing skepticism regarding monastic superiority over the
lay community; () a challenge to the monastic monopoly over funerals and other
rituals.
is paper has demonstrated that laity in China have been no different, as is
evident from the careers of three notable lay Buddhists in th century China.
ese laypeople pushed the boundaries on all these fronts, and challenged the
Saṅgha’s authority on their sole right to perform religious rituals (as we saw with
Wáng’s initiation ceremonies), to interpret the teaching even in a controversial
manner that rejected assumptions long held by the monastic authoritative interpretation (as we saw with Oūyáng and his promotion of Yogācāra), and even to
attempt to assume leading positions in Buddhist institutions (as both Oūyáng’s
pioneering attempt and Zhào Púchū’s success in leading the CBA demonstrate).
ese three examples are by no means isolated. One can add the role of lay
associations and initiatives of laypeople, independent of monastic guidance, in
reaching out to the larger Chinese population (see for example Welch ,  and Jessup ). One can also adduce other controversial laypeople such as
the self-proclaimed Chán teacher Nán Huáijı̌n (B.  南懷瑾). ese examples do not imply that the monastic authority was rejected. In fact, there is little
doubt that the majority of lay devotees still looked to the monastic Saṅgha as the
embodiment of the Buddha in the world and the upholders of his teaching. However, this traditional assumption that the monastic Saṅgha have a monopoly of
religious authority, which was the modus operandi of the pre-modern period, has
been consistently challenged by the laity since the early th century and resulted
in a more egalitarian lay-monastic relationship.
Bibliography
Dàshèng qǎı̌xìnlùn(大乘起信論), T...a-b, Paramārtha (trans).
Aviv, Eyal. . “Differentiating the Pearl From the Fish Eye: Ouyang Jingwu () and the Revival of Scholastic Buddhism.” PhD diss., Harvard University.
Bartke, Wolfgang. . Who’s Who in the People’s Republic of China. München: K.G.
Saur.
Bianchi, Esther. . ”e Tantric Rebirth Movement in Modern China.” Acta Orientalia.: -.

 –   
Borrman, Edward. . Biographical Dictionary of Republican China. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Hardacre, Helen. . “Laity.” In Encyclopedia of Buddhism edited by Robert E.
Buswell. New York: Macmillan.
Chéng, Gōngràng. . ”e Idiosyncrasy of Oūyáng Jiìngwú’s Biography, Career
and Buddhist ought [歐陽竟無先生的生平, 事業及其佛教思想的特質].”
Yuan Kuang Buddhist Journal :-.
Chéng, Gōngràng. . Studies in Ouyang Jingwu’s Buddhist ought [歐陽竟無佛
學思想研究]. Taibei: Xinwenfeng Press.
Clower, Jason. . Empire of Tantra (Unpublished Paper).
Dèng, Zı̌měi and Chén, Bīng. . th Century Chinese Buddhism[二十世紀中國
佛教]. Beijing: Minzu Press.
Fang, Guangchang. . “Yang Wenhui’s Philosophy of Editing the Canon [楊文會
的編藏思想],” Zhonghua foxue xuebao : -.
Gimello, Robert. . “Li T’ung-hsüan and the Practical Dimensions of Hua-yen.”
In Studies in Ch’an and Hua-yen,edited by Robert M. Gimello, and Peter N. Gregory, –. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Gregory, Peter, ed. . Buddhism in the Sung. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
Halperin, Mark. . Out of the Cloister: Literati Perspectives on Buddhism in Sung
China, -. Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center.
Jessup, Brooks J. . e Householder Elite: Buddhist Activism in Shanghai, . PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley
Orzech, Charles D., Sørensen, Henrik H. and Payne, Richard, eds. . Esoteric
Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia. Boston: Brill.
Oūyáng Jìngwú.. “Expositions and Discussions of Vijñāptimātra[唯識抉擇談].”
In Collected Writings of Master Oūyáng[歐陽大師遺集], -. Táiběi: Xīnwénfēng Press.
Oūyáng Jìngwú. . “e General Meaning of Mind Studies [心 學 大 意],” In
Oūyáng Jìngwú Writing Collection [歐 陽 竟 無 文 集], edited by Hong Qisong,
Huang Qilin, -. Táiběi: Wénshū chūbànshè.
Oūyáng, Jìngwú. . “Institute Regulations of the Inner Studies Institute” in Huáng
Xiànián, Anthology of Oūyáng Jìngwú (歐陽竟無集), Běijīng: Zhōnggúo Shèhùi
kēxué chūbǎnshè.
Shì, Dōngchū 釋東初. . Fójiào jìndài shı̌中國佛教近代史 (A History of Modern
Chinese Buddhism). Táiběi: Zhōnghuá fójiào wénhuà gu ǎn.
Shì, Tàixū, . e Complete Works of Tàixū [太虛大師全書], -. Táiběi:
Hǎicháoyīn shè, .
Shì, Xūyún. . Revised and Extended Version of Master Xūyún’s Chronological Biography and Collected Sermons [虛雲老和尚年譜法彙增訂本]. Táiběi: Xiūyuán
Chányuàn.

 –   
Spence, Jonathan D. . e Search for Modern China. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.
Strong, Sarah and John Strong. . “Report from China: A Post Cultural-Revolution
Look at Buddhism,” e China Quarterly : -.
Tuttle, Gray. . Tibetan Buddhists in the making of modern China. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Welch, Holmes. . e practice of Chinese Buddhism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Welch, Holmes. . e Buddhist revival in China. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Welch, Holmes. . Buddhism under Mao. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Wú, Jiāng. . Enlightenment in Dispute. New York: University of Oxford Press,
.
Xué yú. . “Buddhist Contribution to the Socialist Transformation of Buddhism
in China: Activities of Ven. Juzan during –.” Journal of Global Buddhism : -. Accessed May , . http://www.globalbuddhism.org/
/yu.htm
Yú, Língbō 于凌波. . Xiàndài Fójiào rénwù cídiǎn現代佛教人物辭典 (A Dictionary of Modern Buddhists),  vols. Táiběi: Fóguāng Press.
Zhào Púchū, Common Q & A about Buddhism (佛教常识答问), Accessed June ,
. From the China Buddhism Information Network: http://www.buddhism.
com.cn/cs/dawen/dw.htm,
http://www.buddhism.com.cn/cs/dawen/
dw.htm (Originally published in ).

A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of
the Devatā Samyutta
and Devaputta Samyutta,
.
.
collections of early Buddhist discourses
on devatās “gods” and devaputras “sons of gods”*
Choong Mun-keat
[email protected]
is article first examines the textual structure of the Pāli Devatā and Devaputta Samyuttas
in conjunction with two other versions preserved in Chi.
nese translation in a collection entitled 諸天相應 Zhutian Xiangying in
Taishō , nos.  and . en it compares the main teachings contained
in the three versions.
Introduction
e Devatā Samyutta
and Devaputta Samyutta
of the Pāli Samyutta-nikāya
(ab.
.
.
breviated SN) are represented in a collection entitled 諸天相應 Zhutian Xiangying (Skt. Devatā Samyukta)
in Chinese by two versions, one in the Za Ahan Jing
.
雜阿含經 (Samyuktāgama,
abbreviated SA, Taishō vol. , no. ), the other in
.
the Bieyi Za Ahan Jing 別譯雜阿含經 (Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama,
.
abbreviated ASA, Taishō vol. , no. ). ese two samyuttas
in the Pāli ver.
sion and their counterparts, which form one xiangying 相應 (samyukta)
in the
.
two Chinese versions, are the collections of various discourses on the subject of
gods (devatā, 諸天 zhutian) and sons of gods (devaputta, 天子 tianzi, Skt. devaputra). e discourses contained in the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Devatā
* I am indebted to Rod Bucknell for his constructive comments and corrections on a dra of
this article, particularly in the area of textual structure. I am also grateful to the two anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments and corrections.
.  (): –. ©  Choong Mun-keat
 –  
  
   
.
.
and Devaputta Samyuttas
reflect the early Buddhist adaptation of general Indian
.
religious beliefs about devas (divine beings) and dialogues with devas at the time
of the Buddha.
e Pāli and the two Chinese versions record in common that the devas (a
deva or devaputra) usually come to visit the Buddha in the last watch of the night.
ey sometimes come to ask questions, to praise the Buddha, to request instruction, or to challenge him. e conversations recorded in the three versions between the devas and the Buddha are in verse.
In this article I first briefly examine the textual structure of the three versions.
en I compare the main teachings contained in them, making use of new editions of Samyuktāgama:
Yin Shun’s Za Ahan Jing Lun Huibian 雜阿含經論會編
.
[Combined Edition of Sūtra and Śāstra of the Samyuktāgama]
(abbreviated CSA)
.
 is will reveal simand the Foguang Tripitaka
Za
Ahan
Jing
(abbreviated
FSA).
.
ilarities and differences in structure and doctrinal content, thus advancing the
study of early Buddhist teachings in this area.
. Textual structure
e Pāli Devatā and Devaputta Samyuttas
are the first and second of the eleven
.
samyuttas
comprised in the Sagāthā Vagga of Samyutta-nikāya.
e two corre.
.
sponding Chinese versions, one in Taishō edition vol. , no.  (Samyuktāgama)
.
and the other in Taishō vol. , no.  (Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama),
.
do not have any title of the collections, including the section title, Sagāthā Vagga.
ey were translated from now lost Indic-language originals. In the Combined
Edition of Sūtra and Śāstra of the Samyuktāgama
version, the Samyuktāgama
text
.
.
bears the title Zhutian Xiangying 諸天相應 (Devatā Samyukta
‘Connected
with
.
Gods’ or ‘Connected Discourses with Gods’) comprised in the title Eight Assem
ese two new editions contain textual corrections, modern Chinese punctuation, comments,
and up-to-date information on Pāli and other textual counterparts, including different Chinese
versions of the text.

is article is one in a series of comparative studies, of which the previous articles were on Kosala Samyutta
(a) and Māra Samyutta
(b) in the Indian International Journal of Buddhist
.
.
Studies; on Bhikkhu Samyutta
(b) and Vaṅgīsa Samyutta
() in Buddhist Studies Review;
.
.
and on Brāhmana
Sa
myutta
(a)
in
the
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asiatic Society.
.
.

 –  
  
   
.
.
blies Section (the Ba zhong Song 八眾誦) supplied by the editor, Yin Shun. e
Zhutian Xiangying is the counterpart of the Pāli Devatā and Devaputta Samyuttas.
.
In earlier editions of the Samyuktāgama,
xiangying
相應
/sa
myukta
titles
are
.
.
lacking and the beginning and end of each samyukta
have
to
be
inferred
from
.
the sūtra contents. Because samyukta
titles are lacking in earlier editions of Sam.
.
yuktāgama, the collection entitled Zhutian Xiangying (Devatā Samyukta)
in
the
.
Combined Edition of Sūtra and Śāstra of the Samyuktāgama
version cannot be
.
regarded as originally in Samyuktāgama
a single samyukta
rather than two.
.
.
e Zhutian Xiangying is the ninth of the eleven samyuktas
in the Section of
.
the reconstructed Samyuktāgama
version (Choong , pp. , ). e same
.
location – the ninth of the eleven samyuktas
– applies also to the reconstructed
.
Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version.
.
e Pāli Devatā and Devaputta Samyuttas
belong to the Tāmraśātiya/Vibha.
.
jyavāda school (oen called eravāda), the Samyuktāgama
version belongs to
.
the Sarvāstivāda school, and the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version
.
may belong to the Kāśyapīya school (or to an unidentified school). us, these

Skt. as. tau
h;
. parisada
.
. P. at. tha
. parisā.
e section title, 八眾誦 Bazhong Song, is not found in the T vol.  of the SA version (no. )
and the ASA version (no. ). See CSA i, pp. - (in ‘Za Ahan Jing Bulei zhi Zhengbian 雜阿含
經部類之整編 [Re-edition of the Grouped Structure of SA]’), and vol. iii, p. . T , no. 
(Yogācārabhūmi śāstra), pp. a, c: 八眾. T , no.  (the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda Vinaya), p.
 on the title Sagāthā Vagga. Cf. also Bucknell () for a discussion on the sequence of the
Sagātha-vagga and the Eight Assemblies. e author considers that the sequence of the Sagāthavagga derives from the Eight Assemblies. See also CSA i, pp. -, -, -, -, and Choong
().

Yin Shun (), pp. -; CSA i, p. , note .

Yin Shun (), p. ; CSA i, pp. -, ; Mayeda (), p. , note ; Choong (),
pp. -, (), p. , note . Bingenheimer () argues that the attribution of the ASA version
to the Kāśyapīya school by 法幢 Hōdo in 阿毘達磨倶舍論稽古 Abidatsuma Kusharon Keiko/
Abidamo Jishelun Qigu (T, no. ) is mistaken. However, his article does not clearly respond
to the important point made by Yin Shun about the big and small collections (大小二本) of the
Samyuktāgama
text (CSA i, pp. -, note , pp. , ). Both Bingenheimer and recently Buck.
nell () also argue that the ASA version should belong to the Sarvāstivāda school, because its
textual structure is close to the SA version of the Sarvāstivāda. However, the structure of the whole
organisation of the ASA version is clearly not the same as the SA version of the Sarvāstivāda school
(Mayeda , pp. -; Yin Shun , pp. -, ; CSA i, pp. , , , ). A few
divergences between the two versions (SA and ASA) also have been pointed out by Mizuno Kōgen
(in his two articles, - and . Cf. Jin-il Chung , p. , note ). I consider that the
similarities between the two versions should not be over-emphasised, and the differences between
the two should not be entirely ignored. e similarities between the two versions may only indicate


 –  
  
   
.
.
three texts, the Pāli and its two Chinese versions, represent three different early
Buddhist schools, three different versions of the same collection of discourses on
the subject of gods and sons of gods.
e Pāli Devatā Samyutta
comprises eighty-one discourses (SN .–), and
.
the Devaputta Samyutta
comprises thirty discourses (SN .–), totaling 
.
discourses. Of their Chinese counterparts, the Samyuktāgama
version has 
.
discourses (SA –, –, –) and the Additional Translation
of Samyuktāgama
version has  discourses (ASA –, –, –,
.
–, –, –, –). e Additional Translation of Samyuktā.
gama version has two extra discourses (ASA , ) not found in the Sam.
yuktāgama version, whereas the Samyutta-nikāya
version
has
three
extra
dis.
courses not found in the Samyuktāgama
version. e three versions nevertheless
.
contain almost the same number of discourses ( discourses in the Samyutta.
nikāya,  in the Samyuktāgama,
and  discourses in Additional Translation
.
of Samyuktāgama).
.
irty discourses in the Samyuktāgama
and Additional Translation of Sam.
.
yuktāgama versions have no Pāli counterparts in the Devatā and Devaputta Sam.
yuttas. e full set of Chinese-Pāli and Pāli-Chinese counterparts is shown in
they were descended from a ‘near’ common ancestor, but does not prove beyond doubt that they
belong to the same school. For example, the SN and SA versions share a very similar structure,
which suggests they were descended from a near common ancestor (i.e., the Sthavira tradition),
but in fact they belong to the two different Sthavira schools (i.e., the Vibhajyavāda/Vibhajjavāda
and Sarvāstivāda/Sabbatthivāda) (cf. CSA i, pp. -). I therefore consider that the ASA version
should not be regarded as belonging beyond doubt to the Sarvāstivāda, although its textual structure is close to the SA version of the Sarvāstivāda. Also, I consider that the Sarvāstivāda is not a
different school from the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda (cf. Nagasaki and Kaji , pp. -).

SA , , -, , , -, -, -, -, ; ASA
, , -, , , -, -, -, -, . Four discourses in the SA
and ASA versions have their Pāli counterparts in both the Devatā and Devaputta Samyuttas
(SA
.
 = ASA  = SN ., SN .; SA  = ASA  = SN ., SN .; SA  = ASA  =
SN ., SN .; SA  = ASA  = SN ., SN .). Five discourses in the SA version and six
discourses in the ASA version have their Pāli counterparts located in two collections (Yakkha and
Brahma Samyutta)
other than the Devatā and Devaputta Samyuttas
(SA  = ASA  = SN .;
.
.
SA  = ASA  = SN .; SA  = ASA  = SN .; SA  = ASA  = SN .; ASA
 = SN .; SA  = ASA  = SN . ). On the other hand, nineteen discourses in the Pāli
version have no SA counterparts, while eighteen discourses in the Pāli have no ASA counterparts
(SN . (no SA counterpart only), ., ., ., ., ., ., ., .-, ., .-,
., ., and SN .). Finally, two discourses in the Pāli version have their Chinese counterparts
not in the Zhutian Xiangying (SN . = 比丘相應 Biqiu Xiangying SA  = ASA ; SN . =
梵天相應 Fantian Xiangying SA  = ASA ).

 –  
  
   
.
.
Tables  and  (see Appendix). ese two tables are useful for the convenience of
discussions on the textual structure and content.
Fragmentary Sanskrit counterparts of segments of the Chinese Samyuktāgama
.
version (and the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version) were published
.
by Fumio Enomoto (). e published Sanskrit counterparts of the discourses
on the subject of gods and sons of gods consist of forty-five fragments, corresponding to SA , -, -, , , , , , -,
, -, -, , -, , -, -, , , , -, -. ese fragmentary Sanskrit texts are useful
for confirming certain Chinese technical terms.
e identification of the Chinese-Pāli and Pāli-Chinese counterparts is shown
in the tables. As is indicated in Table , the discourses of both the Samyuktāgama
.
and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
versions
are
out
of
order
with re.
gard to the structural arrangement. e rearrangement of the discourses indicated in Table  is according to the Combined Edition of Sūtra and Śāstra of the
Samyuktāgama
version. e method of effecting this rearrangement of the dis.
courses is mainly based on the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
‘twenty.
fascicle’ version compared with the structural order of the Samyuktāgama
ver.
sion. As is evident in the two tables, the discourses in the two Chinese versions
match up with each other closely as regards sequence, while matching up only
loosely with the discourses of the Pāli version. e Samyuktāgama
and Additional
.
Translation of Samyuktāgama
versions
are
therefore
structurally
much
closer to
.
each other than to the Samyutta-nikāya
version.
.
While the distinction or division between the Devatā and Devaputta Sam.
yuttas is not explicit in the Chinese collections as it is in the Pāli, the comparison
reveals that the distinction is in fact present, even if only implicitly. From SA
 = ASA  to the end of Table  (rd column) there is a clear cluster of
discourses whose Pāli parallels are in the Devaputta Samyutta.
is cluster looks
.
like the Samyuktāgama/Additional
Translation
of
Sa
myuktāgama
counterpart of
.
.
the Samyutta-nikāya’s
Devaputta
Sa
myutta.
.
.
To explain further, in Table , third column (SN), the Pāli counterparts contained in the Devaputta Samyutta
are not evenly distributed. Instead they are
.

Enomoto (), pp. –. Cf. also Chung (), pp. –.
ASA , -, -, , , , , , -, , , -, -,
-, , , -, -, , -, -, , -, , -, -.

See Yin Shun (), pp. -; CSA i, pp. , -; iii, pp. -. Cf. also Bucknell
() on the discussion ‘e Two Versions of the Other Translation of Samyuktāgama’
.
.


 –  
  
   
.
.
heavily concentrated at the end. Of the last seventeen discourses of the Samyuk.
tāgama/Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
(/ to the end of the list),
.
fourteen have their Samyutta-nikāya
counterparts in the Devaputta Samyutta.
In
.
.
contrast, of the previous ninety-four discourses in Samyuktāgama,
only
ten
have
.
their counterparts in the Devaputta Samyutta, and those ten are fairly randomly
scattered. us, the situation is:
- Of the first ninety-four discourses of the Samyuktāgama,
ten have their
.
Samyutta-nikāya
counterparts
in
the
Devaputta
=

.
- Of the last seventeen discourses of the Samyuktāgama,
fourteen have their
.
Samyutta-nikāya
counterparts in the Devaputta = 
.
How can one account for this very uneven distribution? If one supposes that
the distinction between Devatā and Devaputta developed only in the Pāli tradition, i.e., aer its separation from the Sarvāstivāda, then there is no way of explaining the uneven distribution. If, however, one supposes that the distinction existed
already before the first split in the Sthavira tradition, then the uneven distribution
is explained very simply: the dense aggregation of Devaputta counterparts at the
end of the list (Table , SA -) reflects the earlier clear division of the
discourses into two samyuttas/sa
myuktas.
Clearly the second possibility is to be
.
.
preferred: the division into two samyuttas
seen
in the Samyutta-nikāya
version is
.
.

not an innovation introduced in the Pāli tradition.
Accordingly, it is likely that the Samyuktāgama/Additional
Translation of Sam.
.
yuktāgama traditions formerly had two separate collections, and that the boundary between them has been obscured following loss or lack of the samyukta
titles.
.
Otherwise, how can one explain the fact that in the Samyuktāgama/Additional
.

On this, a reviewer suggests:
“While I agree that this conclusion is the most plausible one, there are other alternatives. One is
that the situation in the Chinese represents, not a decayed form of a previously clear structure, but
the natural, more primitive state of an emerging structure. at is, discourses tended to be recited
together with others of a similar nature, even before they were formally collected in the samyutta
.
structure. e redactors took this natural tendency, and further shaped it into the samyutta
struc.
ture as we have it today. If this was the case, then the Chinese texts could represent an earlier, less
formalized tradition. ese two hypotheses would have to be tested against other conclusions as to
the relative ages and structural processes of the collections.
Another alternative is the ‘later levelling’ hypothesis, which argues that standardization between texts is more likely to be a sign of later canonization than a shared early source. e devatā/devaputta distinction is not an early one, but arose in the southern Pāli tradition, and subsequently influenced the northern collections. I don’t think this kind of thinking is plausible, but it
is one possible explanation, and it is worth explaining why it is so implausible – primarily, because
there is no evidence at all of this kind of levelling happening.”

 –  
  
   
.
.
Translation of Samyuktāgama
most of the counterparts of Pāli Devaputta dis.
courses are together as a solid block (SA -, ASA - at the end of
the samyukta)?
A blurring of the boundary is seen even in the Samyutta-nikāya,
.
.
with four discourses being duplicated in the two samyuttas;
e.g., SN . = SN
.
..
. e terms devatā (god) and devaputra (son of gods) in the three
versions
Devatā, meaning divine nature, deity or god, is an abstract noun based on deva.
e Pāli Samyutta-nikāya
version has two closely related collections, the Devatā
.
Samyutta
and the Devaputta Samyutta.
It indicates that those gods who have no
.
.
names are called devatās (mostly in the Devatā Samyutta),
while those who have
.
names are called devaputtas (mostly in the Devaputta Samyutta).
However, some
.
verses in the Devaputta Samyutta
also appear in the Devatā Samyutta.
is sug.
.
gests that the distinction between the two terms referring to the gods is not clearly
apparent and not absolutely necessary. Devaputtas (also devadhītās ‘daughters
of the gods’ ) in the Samyutta-nikāya
version are all examples of devatās or gods
.
(devas) in general.
By contrast, the terms devatā and devaputra are always indiscriminately translated in the Samyuktāgama
version as 天子 tianzi (literally, ‘sons of gods/heaven’),
.
and in the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version as 天 tian (literally
.
‘gods’, ‘deity’, or ‘heaven’). e term, 天神 tianshen (‘deity’, ‘gods’), is also used
in a few discourses in the two Chinese versions. Comparison with the Sanskrit
fragments (Enomoto ) reveals that the terms, 天子 and 天神, in the Chinese
Samyuktāgama
correspond sometimes to Sanskrit devatā in the fragments, and
.

Cf. Rhys Davids (), p. , note , p. , note , p. , note , p. , notes -, p. , note
, and pp. , ; Bodhi (), pp. -.

SN .- (SN I , pp. -; , pp. -) = SA - (T , pp. c-c; CSA
iii, pp. -; FSA , pp. -) = ASA - (T , p. a-b).

Cf. Rhys Davids (), p. , note , and p. , note , on the Pāli terms devatā and devaputtā.

SA  (T , p. b-c; CSA iii, pp. -; FSA , pp. -) = ASA  (T , p. bc) = SN . (SN I , pp. -; , pp. -); SA - (T , pp. c-b; CSA iii,
pp. -; FSA , pp. -) = ASA - (pp. b-c); SA  (T , pp. b-b;
CSA iii, pp. -; FSA , pp. -) = ASA  (T , pp. b-c) = SN . (SN I ,
pp. -; , pp. -).

 –  
  
   
.
.
sometimes to Sanskrit devaputra. us, evidently in the Indic source-text the
Chinese translators of Samyuktāgama
and Additional Translation of Samyuktā.
.
gama did not distinguish between these two Sanskrit terms, devatā and devaputra. e Samyuktāgama
translator preferred 天子; the Additional Translation of
.
Samyuktāgama
translator preferred 天.
.
In most of the discourses in Samyuktāgama
and Additional Translation of
.
Samyuktāgama
which provide the name of 天子 or 天, their Pāli counterparts are
.
located in the Devaputta Samyutta,
whereas in most of the discourses in Samyuk.
.
tāgama and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
which do not provide the
.
name of 天子 or 天, their Pāli counterparts are located in the Devatā Samyutta.
.
is correlates with the devaputta/deva distinction in Samyutta-nikāya.
Also,
in
.
the case of the duplicate discourses, for example, SN . and ., or SA  and
, one gives the god’s name, the other does not; this is found in both Chinese
and Samyutta-nikāya
versions. e duplicates are just a few cases, not a solid
.
block, as shown in the two tables. ey are exceptions in the structure, and may
indicate that a devaputta is also a devatā. It seems to show that the allocation to
Devatā or to Devaputta depended simply on whether the god’s name is specified
(except for SN .-; cf. Bodhi , p. ).
Accordingly, the findings indicate that the distinction between () discourses
mentioning the god’s name and () discourses not mentioning the god’s name was
recognised in the Sthavira tradition before the Pāli and Sarvāstivādin branches
separated. is is also a further indication that the distinction between devaputta
and devatā was recognised at that time, and is not something unique to the Pāli
tradition.
. Disagreements on some teachings contained in the three versions
In the following I will discuss only the principal disagreements on some teachings presented in the three versions of devatā, including devaputras, under eight
topics: () a verse presented by the devas, () the heavenly palace, () the notion
of emptiness, () on a practice of a lay person, () the devaputra Anāthapin. dada,
.

For example, 天子 in SA  (= 天子 in ASA ) corresponds to devatā (at Enomoto’s fragments in p. ); 天神 in SA  (= 天神 and 天 in ASA ) corresponds to both devaputra and
devatā (Enomoto, pp. -); 天子 in SA  (= 天 in ASA ) corresponds to devatā (‘devate’
shown in the text at Enomoto, p. ); and 天子 in SA  and  (= 天 in ASA  and )
corresponds to devatā (Enomoto, p. ).

 –  
  
   
.
.
() the heaven of Atappa or Aviha, () eccentric expressions, and () a devaputra
possessed by Māra.
() A verse presented by the devas
As stated in the introduction, the three versions share in common that the devas
usually come to visit the Buddha in the last watch of the night. e conversations
between the devas and the Buddha are in verse. One of the verses presented by the
devas is frequently recorded at the end of most discourses in the Samyuktāgama
.
and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
versions, but found in only one dis.
course in the Samyutta-nikāya
version (SN .). e verse in the Samyuktāgama
.
.
version is (e.g., T , p. b):
久見婆羅門　逮得般涅槃
一切怖已過　永超世恩愛
Aer a long time I see a Brāhmana
.
who has attained final nirvāna.
.
Having overcome all fear
He has gone beyond attachment in the world.
e corresponding Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version has (e.g., T
.
, p. a):
往昔已曾見　婆羅門涅槃
久捨於嫌畏　能度世間愛
Aer a long time I see a Brāhmana
.
who has attained nirvāna.
.
Having overcome hatred and fear
he has gone beyond attachment in the world.
e verse in both Samyuktāgama
and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
.
.
versions indicates clearly that the deva calls the Buddha a Brāhmana
. (usually rendered Brahmin/Brahman in English). A similar verse is found in only one discourse in the Pāli version, SN .. It reads:

Cf. Sanskrit version, Enomoto (, p. ):
cirasya bata paśyāmi brāhmana
. m
. parinirvrtam|
.
sarvavairabhayātītam
. tīrna
. m
. loke visaktikām||
.

SN I , p. ; , p. . Cf. Rhys Davids (), p. ; Bodhi (), p. .

 –  
  
   
.
.
cirassam
. vata passāmi
brāhmana
. m
. parinibbutam
.
appatit. tha
m
anāyūha
m
. .
.
tin. na
. m
. loke visattikan ti.
Aer a long time I see a Brāhmana
.
who has attained final nirvāna.
.
By not halting, not striving,
he has gone beyond attachment in the world.
Accordingly, the major issue is that the use of the verse is repeatedly presented at the end of nearly all discourses in the Samyuktāgama
and Additional
.
Translation of Samyuktāgama
versions.
Only
a
few
discourses
(out
of  and 
.
discourses) in the Samyuktāgama
and
Additional
Translation
of
Sa
myuktāgama
.
.

versions do not have this similar verse. Such a situation is not found in the
Samyutta-nikāya
version. It may suggest that the two Chinese traditions empha.
sise the notion of the Brāhmana
. more than the Pāli tradition does. Although
the verse mentioned more oen in the Chinese collections is merely an artificial
feature of the texts, a formulaic repetition, it does highlight the close connection
between the early Buddhist tradition and the brahmanical tradition (cf. Choong
, p. ).
() e Heavenly palace
In the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version, the devas are recorded
.
as living in their ‘heavenly palace’ (天宮 tiangong). Most of the discourses in
the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version report that the devas, aer
.
having their conversations with the Buddha, return to their heavenly palaces. By
contrast, the Samyuktāgama
and Samyutta-nikāya
versions state that the devas
.
.
disappear right there and then, aer having their conversations with the Buddha.
Only one Samyuktāgama
discourse, SA  (T , pp. b-a), mentions this
.
term, 宮殿 gongdian ‘palace’. Its counterpart, ASA  (T , p. a-b), also has
this term, but it is not found in the corresponding Pāli term (i.e., pura or vimāna
‘palace’) in the counterpart, Jātaka  Guttilajātaka (J. ii, pp. -). e

E.g., SA  = ASA , SA , SA  = ASA , SA - = ASA -, SA -
= ASA -, SA - = ASA -, SA  = ASA , SA  = ASA , SA 
= ASA , SA - = ASA , -.

 –  
  
   
.
.
devas in the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version have actual heav.
enly palaces to reside in, something that is evidently lacking from the corresponding Samyuktāgama
and Samyutta-nikāya
versions. is indicates a major differ.
.
ence regarding the nature of the devas between the Samyuktāgama/Sa
myutta.
.
nikāya and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
versions. e references in
.
the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version to ‘heavenly palaces’ for the
.
devas’ residential areas are possibly a later addition.
() e Notion of Emptiness (SA  = SN .- = ASA ; SA  = ASA
, no SN counterpart; SA  = SN . ,  = ASA )
ASA  (T , p. ) reports a devaputra named Kāśyapa (迦葉 Jiexie) comes to
address the Buddha regarding what are the trainings for a bhiksu
. (monk) thus:
比丘能具念　心得善解脫
願求得涅槃　已知於世間
解有及非有　深知諸法空
是名為比丘　離有獲涅槃
A bhiksu
. who is able to be mindful,
His mind can well attain liberation.
He wishes to obtain nirvāna,
.
Knows the world [of its absolute reality],
Understands existence and non-existence,
Deeply knows all dharmas are empty (深知諸法空).
is is called a bhiksu.
.
He, who is away from [attachment to any] existences, obtains nirvāna.
.
is Additional Translation of the Samyuktāgama
discourse has this expression,
.
‘all dharmas are empty’ (諸法空). is expression is not found in the counterversion in this regard is closer
parts, SA  and SN . -. e Samyuktāgama
.
to the Samyutta-nikāya
version.
A
similar
expression
is also found in another dis.

Many references to returning to a heavenly palace are also found elsewhere in the Māra
Samyukta
of the ASA version. Choong  (b), p. . Cf. also a discussion on the Vimāna
.
Vatthu (‘Matter of Heavenly Palaces’) of the Khuddaka Nikāya in Yin Shun (), pp. -
and Mayeda (), pp. -.

T , pp. c-a; CSA iii, p. ; FSA , p. . SN I , pp. -; , pp. -.
Cf. Rhys Davids (), pp. -; Bodhi (), pp. -.

 –  
  
   
.
.
course in the Additional Translation of the Samyuktāgama
version, no.  (T ,
.
p. ):
… 觀諸法空林
… observes all dharmas are as empty as a forest
Its corresponding SA  (no Samyutta-nikāya
counterpart) does not have such
.
a statement. To say that ‘all dharmas are empty’ and ‘all dharmas are as empty as
a forest’ is a unique phrase not found in the Samyuktāgama
and Samyutta-nikāya
.
.
versions.
Nevertheless, SA  has this expression:
於身虛空想　名色不堅固
In the personality one has the perception of emptiness, [observes]
name-and-material form is not solid.
Its corresponding ASA  (T , p. ) reads:
知身空無我　觀名色不堅
One knows the personality is empty, not self, observes name-andmaterial form is not solid.
However, these are not saying that ‘all dharmas’ are empty (as ASA  does,
above) and ‘all dharmas’ are as empty as a forest (as ASA  does, above). ey
(SA  = ASA ) only indicate that ‘the personality’ is empty of solid, empty
of entity (self).
Consequently, the expressions, ‘all dharmas are empty’ and ‘all dharmas are as
empty as a forest’, in the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version (ASA
.
, ), are likely to be a sectarian doctrine. is may also indicate that the
Additional Translation of the Samyuktāgama
version does not belong to the same
.
school as the Samyuktāgama
version
of
the
Sarvāstivāda
(cf. footnote  above).
.
() On a practice of a lay person (SA  = ASA ; no SN counterpart)
SA  reports a lay follower (優婆塞 youpose, upāsaka), having a conversation
on dharma in verse with a deva (天神 tianshen). He is a merchant, has faith in


T , p. a-b; CSA iii, p. ; FSA , pp. -.
T , p. b-c; CSA iii, p. ; FSA , pp. -.

 –  
  
   
.
.
the Buddha-Dharma-Saṅgha without doubt, sees the Four Noble Truths without uncertainty, and obtains the first fruit of understanding (第一無間等果 diyi
wujiandeng guo). is lay follower, during the last watch of the night, sits crosslegged, setting up mindfulness in front of him, and:
observes the twelve factors of causal condition in the reverse and forward orders (十二因緣逆順觀察)
However, its counterpart, ASA , has a different account. It first reports
similarly that a lay follower, having a conversation on dharma in verse with a 三
寶 sanbao), has pure faith (淨信 jingxin) without doubt in the Buddha-DharmaSaṅgha, has no uncertainty regarding the Four Noble Truths, achieves seeing the
truth (見諦 jiandi), and attains the first fruit (初果 chuguo). But, the lay follower, in the early morning, sits cross-legged, holding the body straight, setting
up mindfulness in front of him, and he:
… chants the sūtras aloud, chanting the dharma verses, the Poluo
sūtra (波羅經? ), and various other sūtras and verses (“高聲誦經。
誦法句偈。及波羅經。種種經偈。).
Contemplating the twelve factors of dependent origination and reciting texts
are quite different practices. Also, the term ‘ree Jewels’ in the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version is not found in the corresponding Samyuktāgama
.
.
version. e practice of chanting can be seen as a form of devotional faith in the
ree Jewels. e two versions here thus indicate their different traditions on a
practice by a lay follower and a merchant.

“爾時。商人中有一優婆塞信佛．信法．信比丘僧。一心向佛．法．僧。歸依佛．
法．僧。於佛離疑。於法．僧離疑。於苦．集．滅．道離疑。見四聖諦得第一無間等
果。在商人中與諸商人共為行侶。彼優婆塞於後夜時端坐思惟。繫念在前。於十二因緣
逆順觀察。所謂是事有故是事有。是事起故是事起。謂緣無明行。緣行識。緣識名色。
緣名色六入處。緣六入處觸。緣觸受。緣受愛。緣愛取。緣取有。緣有生。緣生老．
死．憂．悲．惱．苦。如是純大苦聚集。如是無明滅則行滅。行滅則識滅。識滅則名色
滅。名色滅則六入處滅。六入處滅則觸滅。觸滅則受滅。受滅則愛滅。愛滅則取滅。取
滅則有滅。有滅則生滅。生滅則老．死．憂．悲．惱．苦滅。如是．如是純大苦聚滅。”
T , pp. c-a; CSA iii, pp. -; FSA , pp. -.

A reviewer suggests that this may refer to the Bhāra Sutta (SN . : III, pp. -). e
Chinese counterpart of this text is SA  (T , p. a-b; CSA i, pp. -; FSA , pp. -).

時商估中。有優婆塞。於三寶所。深得淨信。歸佛法僧。於佛法僧。得了決定。無有
狐疑。又於四諦。亦無疑心。已得見諦。獲於初果。晨朝早起。正身端坐。繫念在前。
高聲誦經。誦法句偈。及波羅經 (緣/經 indicated in note )。種種經偈。” T , p. c.

 –  
  
   
.
.
() e devaputra Anāthapin. dada
(SA  = SN .; . = ASA )
.
SA  = SN .; . (verse only) = ASA  (latter part only ) report
in common that a devaputra called Anāthapin. dada
(Samyuktāgama:
給孤獨
.
.
geigudu, Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama:
須達
/
須達多
xudaduo
= Su.

datta; P. Anāthapin. dika)
comes to visit the Buddha. He recites verses not only
.
in praise of the Buddha-dharma but also particularly in honour of Śāriputra (舍
利弗 Shelifo, P. Sāriputta). However, some significant differences in the story
between the three versions are also found, as the following shows.
(a) SA  mentions that aer he dies on account of sickness, Anāthapin. dada
.
is reborn into the Tusita
. heaven (兜率天 doushuai tian). He then comes from
the Tusita
. heaven to visit the Buddha. However, no such a heaven is mentioned
in the counterparts, SN . and ASA  (which the Additional Translation of
Samyuktāgama
version only states that Anāthapin. dada
is reborn into an unnamed
.
.
heaven; see also footnote , above).
(b) e Samyuktāgama
version at the end of the discourse reports the Buddha
.
as saying:
爾時。世尊以尊者舍利弗故。而說偈言。
一切世間智　唯除於如來　比舍利弗智　十六不及一
如舍利弗智　天人悉同等　比於如來智　十六不及一
At that time, the World-Honoured One (the Buddha), because of the
venerable Śāriputra, speaks in verse thus:
Except for the Tathāgata, the wisdom of all others in the world is but
a sixteenth part of the wisdom of Śāriputra.
e wisdom of Śāriputra together with all gods and men is but a sixteenth part of the Tathāgata’s wisdom.
ese words are not found in the corresponding Samyutta-nikāya
and Addi.
tional Translation of Samyuktāgama
versions.
us
the
Sa
myuktāgama
version
.
.

T , p. b-c; CSA iii, pp. -; FSA , pp. -.
SN I , pp. -, -; , pp. -, . Cf. Rhys Davids (), pp. -, -;
Bodhi (), pp. -, -.

T , p. c: “須達長者於佛去後。尋於其夜。身壞命終。得生天上。…”

is is his given name. See SA  (T , pp. b-b; CSA iii, pp. -; FSA , pp. ) = SN . (SN I , pp. -; , pp. -. Cf. Rhys Davids , pp. -;
Bodhi , pp. -) = ASA  (T , pp. b-a).

I have here adopted the translation suggested by a reviewer.


 –  
  
   
.
.
depicts the Buddha claiming wisdom superior to that of Śāriputra and other gods
and humans.
In summary, both points, Anāthapin. dada
being reborn into the heaven of
.
Tusita
and
the
Buddha
claiming
superior
understanding,
are found only in the
.

Samyuktāgama
version.
.
() e heaven of Atappa or of Aviha (SA  = ASA ; no SN counterpart,
cf. AN . Hatthaka)
SA  and its counterpart ASA  state in common that a devaputra Hastaka
(shou tianzi, Samyuktāgama:
手天子, Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama:
.
.
首 天 子) comes to tell the Buddha that he practises the three dharmas (三 法
sanfa), therefore, is reborn in the heaven of Atappa (無熱天 wure tian). ese discourses have no Samyutta-nikāya
counterpart, but instead have their Pāli coun.
terpart in the Aṅguttara Nikāya, AN .. However, this states that a devaputra
Hastaka (P. Hatthaka) is from the heaven of Aviha (Skt. Abrha/Av
rha),
not At.
.
appa, and he comes to tell the Buddha that he practises the three dharmas, which
are similar to the Samyuktāgama
and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
.
.
versions. e three dharmas are: never having enough of seeing the Buddha,
hearing the dharma, and serving the Saṅgha.
Here the Samyuktāgama
and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
ver.
.
sions say he is reborn in the heaven of Atappa, whereas the Pāli AN version states

However, a similar view is also found in the Vaṅgīsa-thera Samyukta
in the ASA version.
.
Choong (), p. , note .

However, Anāthapin. dada
reborn into the Tusita
.
. heaven is also found in the Pāli MN 
Anāthapin. dikovāda
Sutta.
Cf.
Malalasekera
(),
p. . On the English translation of MN
.
, see Ñānamoli
and Bodhi (), pp. -, and Horner (), pp. -. On other
.
sources of Anāthapin. dika,
see also Akanuma (), pp. -. A related story of Anāthapin. dada
.
.
is found in MA  (T , pp. b-b). It does not mention that Anāthapin. dada
dies of a sickness,
.
but he recovers from his sickness aer hearing the teachings of Śāriputra. Anālayo (, p. , note
) argues that Akanuma’s identification that MN  has a parallel in MA  is incorrect.

SA: “佛告手天子。汝於此人間時。於幾法無厭足故。而得生彼無熱天中。手天子白
佛。世尊。我於三法無厭足故。身壞命終。生無熱天。何等三法。我於見佛無厭故。
身壞命終生無熱天。我於佛法無厭足故。生無熱天。供養眾僧無厭足故。身壞命終。
生無熱天。” (T , p. a; CSA iii, p. ; FSA , p. ). ASA: “佛告首天子言。汝行幾
法。不生厭足。身壞命終。生無熱天。首天白佛。我行三法。心無厭足。故得生天。見
佛聽法。供養眾僧。無厭足故。命終得生無熱天上。” (T , p. b). AN I (), p. :
“Bhagavato aham
kālakato, saddhammasavanassāham
. bhante dassanāya atitto appativāno
.
. bhante
atitto appativāno
kālakato, saṅghassāham
atitto appativāno
kālakato.” Cf. F. L.
.
. bhante upat. thānassa
.
.
Woodward (), pp. -.

 –  
  
   
.
.
that he is from the heaven of Aviha. According to the developed Buddhist cosmology, these two heavens belong to one of the eight/seven heavens of a meditation
realm of the fourth dhyāna and both of these are Pure Abodes (Śuddhāvāsa), so
they are not the same heavens within the realm.  Also, how the practice of the
three dharmas has a connection with the two different heavens in a meditation
realm of the fourth dhyāna is not clearly indicated in the three versions. us,
the antiquity of the story and of the teachings of the three dharmas recorded in
the three versions is in question. Here, it needs to be pointed out that the mythological aspect of devas and the faith of the Buddha-Dharma-Saṅgha have been
clearly linked together into the heavens associated with the meditation practice
of dhyāna.
() Eccentric expressions (SA  = ASA ; no SN counterpart)
SA  reports that a deva (or a devaputra) comes to visit the Buddha and says
to the Buddha in verse:
誰屈下而屈下　誰高舉而隨舉
云何童子戲　如童塊相擲
Who, being humble, becomes humble? Who, being arrogant, becomes arrogant? What is the game of children, like children throwing stones to each other?
e Buddha at that time replies in verse:
愛下則隨下　愛舉則隨舉
愛戲於愚夫　如童塊相擲
ose who feel affection for the humble become humble.
ose who feel affection for the arrogant become arrogant.
ose who feel affection for playing a game as a stupid person are
similar to those children throwing stones to each other.

Sadakata (), p. ; Gethin (), p. .
A similar problem is found in the Brahma Samyutta
(e.g., SN . = SA  = ASA ), where
.
the Buddha seems to imply that Brahmā Baka attained his state through generosity and kindness
rather than through dhyānas. Does this suggest that the idea that the Brahma realms can only be
attained by dhyāna is a later development? Or is something else going on here?

T , pp. c-a; -; FSA , pp. -.


 –  
  
   
.
.
However, its counterpart ASA  has a different report. It states that a deva
(or a devaputra) comes to visit the Buddha and says in verse:
誰名為敬順　誰名為陵邈
誰為孾愚戲　如小兒弄土
Who is called reverence? Who is called humility?
Who plays a stupid game, like small children playing with soil?
e Buddha then responds in verse:
男子若敬順　女人必陵邈
男子若陵邈　女人必敬順
女人孾愚戲　如小兒弄土
If men are reverent, women will certainly be humble.
If men are humble, women will certainly be reverent.
Women play a stupid game, like small children playing with soil.
Accordingly, both versions not only have almost entirely different contents
of teaching, but also are equally eccentric in the questions by the deva and the
responses by the Buddha. e conversations do not make any reasonable questions and judgments. ese discourses have no Samyutta-nikāya
counterpart.
.
us, the antiquity of the story in the Samyuktāgama
and Additional Transla.
tion of Samyuktāgama
versions
is
certainly
in
question.
Also, the expression, ‘…
.
Women play a stupid game, like small children playing with soil’, implies gender
discrimination. It is very striking that this uniquely sexist sūtra is both inauthentic and irrational.
() A devaputra possessed by Māra (SA  = SN . = ASA )
SA  records that a devaputra named Ākotaka
is possessed by Māra, the Evil
.
One, to speak in verse to the Buddha. Its Pāli counterpart, SN ., reports that

T , p. a.
“爾時天魔波旬著阿俱吒天子而說偈言。
精勤棄闇冥　常守護遠離
深著微妙色　貪樂於梵世
我教化斯等　令得生梵天
爾時。世尊作是念。若此阿俱吒天子所說偈。此是天魔波旬加其力故。非彼阿俱吒天子
自心所說。” (T , p. c; CSA iii, p. ; FSA , p. )


 –  
  
   
.
.
Māra possesses the devaputra Vetambari
(not Ākotaka)
to address the Buddha in
.
.

verse. is myth indicates that a devaputra can easily be possessed by Māra,
who has such a power. However, the corresponding Additional Translation of
Samyuktāgama
version (no. ) does not have such a story of Māra possessing
.
a devaputra to speak to the Buddha in verse. us, the Samyuktāgama
version
.
in this regard is closer to the Samyutta-nikāya
version.
.
Conclusion
Structurally, the Pāli Devatā and Devaputta Samyuttas
correspond to the Zhutian
.
Xiangying (Devatā Samyukta)
in
the
reconstructed
two
Chinese versions. It is
.
likely that the division into two samyuttas
seen
in
the
Pāli
Samyutta-nikāya
ver.
.
sion is original. e boundary between two separate collections in the Samyuktā.
gama and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
versions
has
been
obscured
.
following loss or lack of the samyukta titles. Both the Chinese Samyuktāgama
.
and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
versions
are
out
of
order
with re.
gard to the sequence and arrangement of the discourses. Also, the two Chinese
versions match up with each other closely regarding the sequence and arrangement of the discourses, whereas the Pāli version of the discourses matches up
only very loosely with the two Chinese versions. us, the Samyuktāgama
and
.
Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
versions are structurally much closer to
.
each other than to the Samyutta-nikāya
version.
.
As for the contents, this comparative study of these three different versions
has focused on the terms devatā ‘god’ and devaputra ‘son of a god’ and on some
disagreements presented in the three versions. e comparison has revealed the
following main points:

atha kho Māro pāpimā Vetambari
m
.
. devaputtam
. anvāvisitvā Bhagavato santike imam
. gātham
.
abhāsi:
tapo jigucchāya āyuttā
pālayam
. pavivekiyam
.
rūpe ca ye nivit. thāse
.
devalokābhinandino
te ve sammānusāsanti
paralokāya mātiyā ti.
Atha kho Bhagavā Māro ayam
. pāpimā iti viditvā…”. (SN I , pp. -; , p. . Cf. Rhys
Davids , pp. -; Bodhi , pp. -).

T, pp. c-c.

 –  
  
   
.
.
. Comparison with the Sanskrit fragments (Enomoto ) and the Pāli
counterpart reveals that the Chinese translators of Samyuktāgama
and Additional
.
Translation of Samyuktāgama
did
not
distinguish
between
these
two
Sanskrit terms,
.
devatā and devaputra. e Samyuktāgama
translator
preferred
天子
, whereas the
.
Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
translator preferred 天.
.
. e distinction between discourses on devaputta (mentioning the god’s
name) and devatā (not mentioning the god’s name) was recognised in the Sthavira
tradition before the Pāli and Sarvāstivādin branches separated, and thus it is not
something unique to the Pāli tradition.
. A verse on the notion of Brāhmana
. appears at the end of nearly all discourses in the Samyuktāgama
and
Additional
Translation of Samyuktāgama
ver.
.
sions. It is likely that the two Chinese traditions emphasise the notion of Brāhmana
.
more than their Pāli counterpart. e verse mentioned more oen in the Chinese collections is a formulaic repetition of the texts; however, it does highlight
the close connection between the early Buddhist tradition and the brahmanical
tradition.
. Only the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version indicates repeat.
edly that the devas have actual ‘heavenly palaces’ (天宮) to reside in.
. e expressions, ‘all dharmas are empty’ and ‘all dharmas are as empty as
a forest’, in the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version, are not found in
.
the Samyuktāgama
and
Sa
myutta-nikāya
versions.
ese
are likely to be a sec.
.
tarian doctrine. It may indicate that the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
.
version does not belong to the same school as the Samyuktāgama,
which is the
.
Sarvāstivāda.
. e Samyuktāgama
and its counterpart Additional Translation of Samyuk.
.
tāgama versions (SA  = ASA ; no Samyutta-nikāya
counterpart)
describe
.
different practices by a lay follower. e Samyuktāgama
version states that he
.
observes in seated meditation the twelve factors of causal condition in the negative
and forward orders, whereas the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version
.
records that he chants aloud the various texts while sitting cross-legged, and shows
the faith in the use of the term, ree Jewels (三寶).
. Only the Samyuktāgama
version reports that the devaputra Anāthapin. dada
.
.
is reborn into the Tusita
. heaven and depicts the Buddha regarding himself as superior in understanding to Śāriputra and other gods and humans.
. All three versions record that the devaputra Hastaka practises the three
dharmas (never having enough of seeing the Buddha, hearing the Dharma, and

 –  
  
   
.
.
serving the Saṅgha). But the Samyuktāgama
and Additional Translation of Sam.
.
yuktāgama versions say the devaputra is thus reborn in the heaven of Atappa,
whereas the Pāli version states that he is from the heaven of Aviha (not Atappa).
. Atappa and Aviha are distinct realms among the eight/seven heavens of the
fourth dhyāna. e connection between the practice of the three dharmas and the
two meditation heavens is not clearly presented in the three versions. However,
they clearly indicate that the mythological aspect of devas and faith in BuddhaDharma-Saṅgha have been associated with the heavens that are connected with
the meditation practice of dhyāna.
. Both Samyuktāgama
and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
ver.
.
sions record differently some verses in which the questions by the deva and the
responses by the Buddha are rather unusual. eir contents do not form any
reasonable questions and judgments. ese discourses have no Samyutta-nikāya
.
counterpart. us, the antiquity of the story is in question. Also, it includes an
expression of gender discrimination against women.
. Only the Samyuktāgama
and Samyutta-nikāya
versions record that a
.
.
devaputra is possessed by Māra, the Evil One, to speak in verse to the Buddha.
Overall, the study has shown that, while the vast bulk of teachings is shared
in common between the three versions, there are a few minor points of difference. Also, one might point out that, in so far as the variations between the
Samyuktāgama
and Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
versions can be spec.
.
ulatively dated, in each case the Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama
version
.
seems to be later (inclusion of proto-Mahāyānist ideas, emphasis on devotion,
divine palaces).

 –  
  
   
.
.
Appendix
Table : Chinese-Pāli correspondences of the Zhutian Xiangying/Devatā Sam.
yukta (= SN . Devatā Samyutta
and SN . Devaputta Samyutta)
.
.
SA (Chinese)







None
 (and )


























 (= )


ASA (Chinese)








 (and )





-














 (cf. EA .)





 (note: the same as above)



SN (Pāli)
. Devatā Samyutta

.
.
.
.
. Devaputta Samyutta

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
., 
.
.
.
None
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
None (cf. SN .Yakkha Samyutta
)
.
.
.
.
.
. (the same as above)
. 
.
Continued on next page
 –  
  
   
.
.
SA (Chinese)







 (cf. MA : T, a)



None (cf. SA  in Pocuozhong
Xiangying 婆蹉種相應)










 (and )



















ASA (Chinese)








 (latter part) (cf. EA .
(latter part))



SN (Pāli)
. 
. ; . 
.
.
.
None
None
None (cf. SN .Yakkha Samyutta
)
.
.; . (verse) (cf. MN 
(latter part) = MA )
None (cf. AN .)
.; .
None







None


 (and )


None





 (cf. EA .)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
None
.
.
.
None
None
None
.
.
.
.
.
None (cf. SN . Brahma Samyutta
;
.
AN .; Sn. . Kokāliyā-sutta)
None
None
.
None
None (cf. DN )
None (cf. J.  Guttila-jātaka)
None
., 
.
.
Continued on next page




 (cf. MA ; DA )






 –  
  
   
.
.
SA (Chinese)












None











 (and )


ASA (Chinese)



















 (cf. EA .)




 (and )



 ()



 (and )


SN (Pāli)
.
None
None
None
None
None
None (cf. Sn. )
None
None
None
None
None (cf. SN .Yakkha Samyutta
)
.
None (cf. SN .Yakkha Samyutta
)
.
None
.
.
.
.
.
. (cf. AN .)
.
.
.; .
.
.
.
None (cf. SN . Yakkha Samyutta
;
.
Sn. . Sūciloma-sutta)
.
.
.-
.- (note: the same as above)

 –  
  
   
.
.
Table : Pāli-Chinese correspondences of the Devatā and Devaputta Samyuttas
.
(= Zhutian Xiangying)
SN (Pāli)
. Devatā Samyutta

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. (and SN .)
.
.
.
.
. (and SN .)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SA (Chinese)
ASA (Chinese)






None

, 
, 











 (cf. EA .)






 (in Lin Xiangying 林相應)









 (in Biqiu Xiangying 比丘相應)









-















None
None






 (in Fantian Xiangying 梵天相應)







Continued on next page

 –  
  
   
.
.
SN (Pāli)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. (and SN .)
.
. (and SN .)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. (and .)
.
.
.
. (and .)
.
.
.
.
.
. Devaputta Samyutta

.
.
.
. (and SN .)
.
.
SA (Chinese)
ASA (Chinese)
None
None




None
None
None
None






None
None




None
None




















None
None


None
None
None
None
None
None


None
None

-







-


None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None












Continued on next page

 –  
  
   
.
.
SN (Pāli)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. (and SN .)
.
.
.
. (and SN .)
.
.
.
. (and SN .)
.
. (cf. AN .)
.
.
.
.
SA (Chinese)


None


None

, 









 (in Lin Xiangying 林相應)

None




ASA (Chinese)


None


None

, 










 (cf. EA .)
None



 –  
  
   
.
.
Abbreviations
AN
ASA
CSA
DA
DN
EA
FSA
J
MA
MN
PTS
SA
SN
Sn
T
Aṅguttara-nikāya
Bieyi Za Ahan Jing [Additional Translation of Samyuktāgama]
.
(T , no. )
Yin Shun’s Za Ahan Jing Lun Huibian [Combined Edition of Sūtra
and Śāstra of the Samyuktāgama]
( vols, )
.
Dīrghāgama (T , no. )
Dīgha-nikāya
Ekottarikāgama (T , no. )
Foguang Tripitaka
Za Ahan Jing (Samyuktāgama)
( vols, )
.
.
Jātaka
Madhyamāgama (T , no. )
Majjhima-nikāya
Pali Text Society
Samyuktāgama
(T , no. )
.
Samyutta-nikāya
.
Suttanipāta
Taishō Chinese Tripitaka
(e standard edition for most scholarly
.
purposes)
AN, DN, J., MN, SN and Sn. references are to PTS editions.
Bibliography
ANĀLAYO, ‘Teachings to Lay Disciples: e Samyukta-āgama
Parallel to the Anātha.
pin. dikovāda-sutta’
, Buddhist Studies Review, vol. , no.  (), pp. -.
.
AKANUMA, Chizen, Indo Bukkyō Koyū Meishi Jiten [A Dictionary of Buddhist Proper
Names] (Hōzōkan, Kyoto, , reprinted ). Teachings to Lay Disciples: e
Samyukta-āgama
Parallel to the Anāthapin. dikovāda-sutta
.
.
BINGENHEIMER, Marcus, ‘More Suttas on Sakka and why the Shorter Chinese
Samyukta-āgama
should not be attributed to the Kāśyapīya school’, Buddhist Stud.
ies Review, vol. , no.  (), pp. -.
BODHI, Bhikkhu, e Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the
Samyutta
Nikāya (Wisdom Publications, Boston, MA, ).
.
BUCKNELL, Roderick S, Pali-Chinese Sutra Correspondences (unpublished dra) (Brisbane, ).

 –  
  
   
.
.
BUCKNELL, Roderick S, ‘e Structure of the Sagātha-Vagga of the Samyutta-Nikāya’
,
.
Buddhist Studies Review, vol. , no.  (), pp. -.
BUCKNELL, Roderick S, ‘e Two Versions of the Other Translation of Samyuktā.
gama’, Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, vol.  (), pp. -.
BUCKNELL, Roderick S, ‘e historical relationship between the two Chinese
Samyuktāgama
translations’, Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, vol.  (), pp.
.
-.
CBETA Chinese Electronic Tripitaka Version  (Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text
Association, Taipei).
CHOONG, Mun-keat, e Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A comparative study based on the Sūtrāṅga portion of the Pāli Samyutta-Nikāya
and the
.
Chinese Samyuktāgama
(=Beiträge
zur
Indologie
)
(Harrassowitz
Verlag,
Wies.
baden ).
CHOONG, Mun-keat, ‘A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Kosala Samyutta,
an early Buddhist discourse on King Pasenadi of Kosala’, Indian
.
International Journal of Buddhist Studies, no.  (a), pp. -.
CHOONG, Mun-keat, ‘A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Bhikkhu
Samyutta,
a collection of early Buddhist discourses on monks’, Buddhist Studies
.
Review, vol. , no.  (b), pp. -.
CHOONG, Mun-keat, ‘A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Vaṅgīsathera Samyutta,
a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the venerable
.
Vaṅgīsa’, Buddhist Studies Review, vol. , no.  (), pp. -.
CHOONG, Mun-keat, ‘A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Brāhmana
a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the priestly Brāh. Samyutta,
.
manas’
,
Journal
of
the Royal Asiatic Society, Series , vol. , no.  (a), pp.
.
-.
CHOONG, Mun-keat, ‘A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the Māra
Samyutta,
a collection of early Buddhist discourses on Māra, the Evil One’, Indian
.
International Journal of Buddhist Studies, no.  (b), pp. -.
CHOONG, Mun-keat, ‘Problems and Prospects of the Chinese Samyuktagama: Its
structure and content’, Translating Buddhist Chinese: Problems and Prospects (=
Series: East Asia Intercultural Studies - Interkulturelle Ostasienstudien ; edited by
Konrad Meisig) (Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, ), pp. -.
CHUNG, Jin-il, A Survey of the Sanskrit Fragments Corresponding to the Chinese
Samyuktāgama
(Sankibō Busshorin, Tokyo, ).
.
ENOMOTO, Fumio, A Comprehensive Study of the Chinese Samyuktāgama:
Indic
.
Texts Corresponding to the Chinese Samyuktāgama
as Found in the Sarvāstivāda.
Mūlasarvāstivāda Literature (Kacho Junior College, Kyoto, ).

 –  
  
   
.
.
ENONOTO, Fumio,『雑阿含』
‘
Devatāsamyukta と Devatāsūtra の展開： Ratnāvadānamālā 第八章の成立’, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, vol. XXXI,
No. , December , pp. - (-).
GETHIN, Rupert , e Foundations of Buddhism (Oxford University Press, ).
HORNER, I. B., e Middle Length Sayings (MN III) (PTS, London, ).
MALALASEKERA, G. P., Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names,  vols. (Oriental Books
Reprint Corporation, New Delhi, , reprinted ).
MAYEDA, Egaku, Genshi Bukkyō seiten no seiritsushi kenkyū 原始佛教聖典の成立
史研究 (A History of the Formation of Early Buddhist Texts) (Sankibō Busshorin,
Tokyo, ).
MIZUNO, Kōgen, ‘部派佛教と雑阿含’ Buha Bukkyō to Zōagon [Early Buddhist
Schools and Samyuktāgama],
in 國譯一切經 Kokuyaku Issaigyō, vol. , Taitō
.
Shuppansha, Tokyo, -, pp. -.
MIZUNO, Kōgen, ‘別譯雑阿含經について’ Betsuyaku Zōagonkyō ni tsuite, Journal
of Indian and Buddhist Studies,  () , pp. -.
NAGASAKI, Hōjun 長崎法潤; KAJI, Yōichi 加治洋一, ‘雑阿含経解’ Zōagonkyō
Kaidai [Explanatory notes of the Chinese SA (Taishō )], in 雑阿含経 I, 新
国 訳 大 蔵 経, 阿 含 部  Zōagonkyō , Shinkokuyakudaizōkyō Agonbu  [e
New Japanese Translation of the Chinese SA (Taishō ) vol. , Āgamas no. ],
Daizōshuppan, Tokyo, , pp. -.
ÑĀNAMOLI,
Bhikkhu and BODHI, Bhikkhu, e Middle Length Discourses of the
.
Buddha: A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya (Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, ).
RHYS DAVIDS, C. A. F., e Book of the Kindred Sayings (SN I) (PTS, London,
).
SADAKATA, Akira, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins (Kōsei Publishing
Co, Tokyo, ).
WOODWARD, F. L., e Book of the Gradual Sayings (AN I) (PTS, London, ).
YIN SHUN (印順), 原始佛教聖典之集成 Yuanshi Fojiao Shengdian zhi Jicheng [e
Formation of Early Buddhist Texts] (Zhengwen Chubanshe, Taipei, ).

Some Remarks on Buddhaghosa’s use of Sanskrit Grammar: Possible
Hints of an Unknown Pāninian
Commentary in Buddhaghosa’s
.
Grammatical Arguments
A.M. Gornall
amg@cam.ac.uk
is article explores hints of an unknown Pāninan
grammatical commen.
tary in the writings of Buddhaghosa. In addition, it speculates on the religious affiliations of the grammatical lineages that meditated Buddhaghosa’s
use of Sanskrit grammar and, in doing so, questions the common assumption that Buddhaghosa’s knowledge of Sanskrit and Sanskrit grammar originated within a Brahmanical literary culture.
“You know my method. It is founded
upon the observation of trifles.”
Sherlock Holmes, e Boscombe Valley Mystery
e association of Buddhist schools in pre-modern South Asia with particular literary languages, such as Sanskrit or Pāli, has influenced understanding of
their participation within the wider literary milieu of South Asia. eravāda Buddhism, for instance, uses Pāli for its primary religious literature and as a result
is oen depicted as culturally isolated, resisting influences from Brahmanical or
Mahāyānist Sanskrit.
e cultural significance of the use of Sanskrit by eravāda monastic literati
is generally explained as the result of a passive borrowing from Mahāyāna or Brahmanical groups. For instance, with respect to Buddhaghosa’s use of Sanskrit, Norman states that “the author shows acquaintance with Sanskrit and Sanskrit grammarians, which would be in keeping with the traditional view that Buddhaghosa

Conan Doyle : .
.  (): –. ©  A.M. Gornall
 –    ’    
was a Brahman before he became a Buddhist...”. It is rarely acknowledged that
eravāda literati may have had their own long-standing culture of Sanskrit learning and have actively engaged in the Sanskrit literary cultures of their Brahmanical
and Mahāyānist contemporaries. erefore, the assumption that linguistic usage
in pre-modern South Asia was coterminous with religious identity – in this case
the assumption that Sanskrit is synonymous with Brahmanism – has perhaps led
to a neglect of eravāda Buddhism as a key agent in the cross-fertilisation of a
variety of languages and literary cultures in South Asia. In addition, this sense
of linguistic, and therefore cultural, isolation may have contributed to the neglect
of Pāli literature as a means of understanding intellectual developments in South
Asian history, in particular those written in Sanskrit.
is paper begins an exploration of the eravāda Buddhist interaction with
other South Asian literary cultures. In doing so, I tread a well-worn path by investigating certain documented aspects of Buddhaghosa’s use of Sanskrit grammatical literature. I provide a new analysis of its significance by situating his use
of Sanskrit grammar within a wider South Asian grammatical culture and by taking into account the possible ideological affiliations of the Sanskrit grammars he
used.
Buddhaghosa’s Use of Sanskrit Grammar
Buddhaghosa’s use of Sanskrit grammar in his commentarial literature comes at
an important juncture in eravāda Buddhist literary history. According to tradition, Buddhaghosa (c. th century) revived the Pāli commentarial tradition and
reproduced Pāli versions of the Sinhala commentaries extant in his time. Buddhaghosa’s literary activities represented an unprecedented flourish of post-canonical
Pāli literature and his style of writing set the standard for commentators writing
in his wake. is activity in Pāli composition and exegesis must have required an
extensive array of linguistic tools such as grammars and lexicons. ese tools
lent grammatical authority to Buddhaghosa’s writing and his interpretation of
Buddhist doctrine. is is exemplified in Buddhaghosa’s definition of the term
paticcasamuppāda
(“dependent origination”) in the Visuddhimagga (Path of Pu.
rification), his meditation manual, where he refers to the authority of grammar
in order to refute an interpretation contrary to his own. Ascertaining the gram

Norman : .
Vism : -.

 –    ’    
mars Buddhaghosa was using to write and interpret Pāli is therefore an important
task for understanding this pivotal stage in the development of Pāli literature and
the interpretation of eravāda Buddhist doctrine.
In , Franke proposed that Buddhaghosa’s grammatical analyses relied
upon an early Pāli grammatical tradition. He based his assumption on a quote
in the Rūpasiddhi (e Construction of [Grammatical] Forms, c.th century), a
grammatical handbook to the first Pāli grammar, the Kaccāyana-vyākarana
. (e
Grammar of Kaccāyana, c. th century), which lists some of the grammatical
terms used by Buddhaghosa. However, Pind has proposed that this quote does
not originate from a pre-Buddhaghosa Pāli grammar and that it is only a summary of the terminology found in the commentaries to the Pāli canon. He also
shows that the Rūpasiddhi-tīkā,
a commentary to the Rūpasiddhi, identifies the
.
source of the quote as the Mahānirutti (e Great Analysis), an old commentary
on the Kaccāyana-vyākarana.
. Pind concludes that “there is therefore no reason to
believe that the few grammatical terms that have no parallel in Sanskrit grammatical terminology reflect an old system of Pāli grammar. ey probably represent
part of a terminology that originated with the attempt to establish a canonical
exegesis.”
Alongside this grammatical terminology peculiar to the commentaries, it has
also long been recognised that Buddhaghosa sometimes relied upon Sanskrit grammar when writing his commentaries to the Pāli canon. In particular, Buddhaghosa appears to have relied exclusively on the tradition of the As. tādhyāyī
(e
.
Eight Lessons) of Pānini,
the earliest and most authoritative grammar of Sanskrit
.
(th c. ). B.C. Law was one of the first to notice the influence of Pānini
on
.
Buddhaghosa. For instance, he pointed out the similarities between Buddhaghosa’s gloss on indriya (“sense organ”) in the Visuddhimagga with the grammatical rule A... indriyam indraliṅgam indradr. s. tam
. indrasr. s. tam
. indrajus. tam
.

indradattam iti vā. More recently, Ole Pind has conducted exhaustive studies
on Buddhaghosa’s use of Sanskrit grammar and has demonstrated that Buddha
Pind : .
Franke : .

Pind : .

Ibid.

Ko pana nesam
indadesitat. tho
. indriyattho nāmā ti? Indaliṅgat. t. ho
. indriyat. tho;
.
. indriyat. tho;
.
indadit. tha
t
tho
indriya
t
tho;
indasi
t
tha
t
tho
indriya
t
t
ho;
indaju
t
thattho
indriya
t
tho:
so
sabbo pi idha
. ..
..
.. ..
.. .
..
..
yathāyogam
. yujjati. Vism : .

Law : -.


 –    ’    
ghosa refers to Pāninian
grammar, i.e. the As. tādhyāyī
and its commentaries,
.
.
when quoting the opinions of “grammar” (saddasattha) or “grammarians”, viz.
saddalakkhanavidū
(“a knower of the rules of words”), saddavidū (“a knower of
.
words”) and akkharacintaka (“a syllable ponderer”).
However, some important implications of Pind’s work for the understanding of the history of grammatical traditions in wider South Asia have not been
taken into account. For instance, from Patañjali’s Mahābhāsya
. (e Great Commentary, nd c. ), a commentary on the As. tādhyāyī,
up
until Bhartrhari’s
.
.
Vākyapadīya (Of Sentences and Words, th-th c. ), a grammatical and philosophical work in the Pāninian
tradition, relatively little is known about the devel.
opment of the Pāninian
grammatical
tradition in South Asia. Buddhaghosa’s use
.
of the As. tādhyāyī
in the th century therefore potentially provides clues to the
.
development of the Pāninian
grammatical tradition prior to Bhartrhari.
In this
.
.
regard, I focus on certain grammatical discussions that may reveal which commentarial tradition mediated Buddhaghosa’s use of the As. tādhyāyī.
I speculate
.
that Buddhaghosa’s discussions hint at the existence of an unknown commentary to the As. tādhyāyī
that may have been related, directly or indirectly, to the
.
Kāśikā-vrtti
. (e Commentary from Kāśī), a th century gloss on the As. tādhyāyī
.
of Pānini,
and
the
Cāndra-v
rtti
(e
Commentary
on
Cāndra,
th-th
c.
?), a
.
.
gloss on the Cāndra-vyākarana
. (e Grammar of Candra), a grammar written by
the Buddhist Candragomin (th c. ). In addition, the ideological affiliations
of Buddhaghosa’s grammatical source materials have not been taken into consideration. By speculating on the grammatical cultures Buddhaghosa was interacting with, it is possible to test the common assumption that Buddhaghosa’s use
of Sanskrit grammar, and oen by implication the use of Sanskrit by eravāda
Buddhists at large, was linked to interactions with Brahmanism.
e Four Grammatical Discussions
In this paper, I focus on four grammatical discussions in Buddhaghosa’s commentaries, the significance of which has yet to be recognised in the context of
the history of South Asian grammar. All four discussions are taken from Pind’s
analysis of Buddhaghosa’s use of Sanskrit grammar. Due to the uncertainty
about the authorship of some works attributed to Buddhaghosa, Pind only anal

Pind : .
Pind , .

 –    ’    
ysed “the works for which the authorship is beyond doubt: Visuddhimagga [Vism],
Samantapāsādikā [Sp], and the commentaries on the āgamas: Sumaṅgalavilāsinī

[Sv], Papañcasūdanī [Ps], Sāratthappakāsinī [Spk], and Manorathapūranī
. [Mp].”
e four discussions in question are () Vism , -, () Sp , -,  ad
Vin III , , () Sv , - ad D , , and () Sp , - ad Vin III , .
. A Verse of Nirukta (Vism , -)
e first example is found in a passage of the Visuddhimagga in which Buddhaghosa provides a semantic analysis of the term bhagavā. Aer turning to the
Niddesa (e Descriptive Exposition) to provide an initial analysis of the word,
Buddhaghosa offers an alternative analysis in the following verse:
bhāgyavā bhaggavā yutto bhagehi ca vibhattavā
bhattavā vantagamano bhavesu bhagavā tato ti.
He has fortune and has broken (free), he is associated with blessings,
he has analysed and is worshipped, and he has renounced journeying
among lives. erefore, he is bhagavā.
Buddhaghosa then provides a description of the various methods employed in his
analysis of the term bhagavā. Pind translates this discussion as follows:
tattha van. nāgamo
van. navipariyāyo
ti ādikam
.
.
. niruttilakkhana
. m
. gahetvā, saddanayena vā pisodarādipakkhepalakkhana
. m
. gahetvā, yasmā
lokiyalokuttarasukhābhinibbattakam
dānasīlādipārappatta
m
.
. bhāgyam

assa atthi, tasmā bhāgyavā ti vattabbe bhagavā ti vuccatī ti ñātabbam.
.
“In this case it should be known – either by adopting the rule of
etymology (niruttilakkhana
. m)
. which runs: ‘letter insertion, letter
metathesis’, etc. or by adopting, according to the method of grammar (saddanayena), the rule that consists in interpolating [the word
in question] in [the word class] beginning with pisodara – that since
he is blessed with having been perfected with regard to charity and

Pind : .
Vism : .

Translations are my own unless otherwise specified.

Vism : .


 –    ’    
morality, etc., which gives rise to mundane and transmundane happiness, he is called bhagavan, although [in actuality] he ought to be
called bhāgyavan.”
In the above passage, Buddhaghosa states that he uses two main methods in analysing the term bhagavā, the method of semantic analysis (nirutti) and the method
of grammatical analysis (saddanaya). In specifying his methods of semantic analysis, Buddhaghosa refers above to a verse that begins “letter insertion, letter metathesis...” Pind traces this quotation to a verse in the Kāśikā-vrtti,
. a th century gloss
on the As. tādhyāyī
of
Pā
nini,
in
its
commentary
on
the
grammatical
rule A...
.
.
pr. sodarādīni
yathopadi
s
tam:
.
..
varnāgamo
varnaviparyayaś
ca dvau cāparau varnavikāranāśau,
dhā.
.
.

tos tadarthātiśayena yogas tad ucyate pañcavidham
. niruktam.
Letter insertion, letter metathesis, the next two viz. letter modification and letter elision, and the connection of a root through the
extension of its meaning – this is called the five-fold semantic analysis.
e similarities between this verse and the one quoted by Buddhaghosa indicate
that Buddhaghosa was likely referring to these five methods of nirukta (semantic
analysis) in his discussion. e rule A... states that the class of compounds
beginning with pr. sodara
(“having a spotted belly”) is introduced as taught by
.
 is rule accounts for a class of compounds
learned speakers (yathopadis. tam).
.
which are formed with a number of irregularities, viz. the elision, insertion or
modification of particular letters. eir formation cannot be explained through
grammatical rules and, therefore, Pānini
refers to “learned speakers” as an au.
thority. e key point is that, since these irregular words cannot be explained
through grammatical rules, their formation is to be understood by the ways in
which learned speakers form them, i.e. through the elision, insertion or modification of particular letters.
In describing his method of grammatical analysis, Buddhaghosa also refers to
this rule in the statement pisodarādipakkhepalakkhana
. m
. (the rule that consists in

Pind : .
KVr. : .

Katre : .


 –    ’    
interpolating [the word in question] in [the word class] beginning with pisodara).
Here, Buddhaghosa implies that the word bhagavā is to be included in the list
of words beginning with pisodara (S. pr. sodara)
and, therefore, according to A.
.
.. pr. sodarādīni
yathopadi
s
tam,
its
form
can
be
explained by means of elision,
.
..
insertion and modification. It is clear that the methods of analysis prescribed by
the discipline of nirukta (semantic analysis) and grammar, viz. A..., do not
differ significantly, and by quoting a definition of nirukta under A... the
Kāśikā-vrtti
. suggests that A... establishes the correctness of words using the
techniques of semantic analysis (nirukta).
Significant for the history of grammatical thought, however, is the fact that
Buddhaghosa could not have utilised the Kāśikā-vrtti,
. since it was written in the
th century. In addition, the fact that Buddhaghosa juxtaposes this verse on semantic analysis to a reference to A... may indicate that Buddhaghosa was
aware of a grammatical commentary that linked this nirukta verse and grammatical rule in a similar way to the Kāśikā-vrtti.
In this regard, Pind states that
.
“Buddhaghosa and the authors of the Kāśikā were conversant with a grammatical tradition where the verse was somehow attached to this specific Pānini
. sūtra
as part of its commentary. Patañjali does not quote the verse ad loc., but this, of
course, does not exclude the possibility that it belongs to a grammatical tradition
antedating Patañjali.”
While Pind’s analysis of this passage is highly praiseworthy, he does not fully
recognise the significance of this finding for the history of grammatical thought
in South Asia. For instance, this verse is in fact found in a grammatical commentary earlier than the Kāśikā-vrtti,
. the vrtti
. (gloss) to the Cāndra-vyākarana.
. e
Cāndra-vrtti
. is a gloss on the rules of the Cāndra-vyākarana,
. a system of grammar written by the Buddhist Candragomin most probably in the th century. It
is now widely accepted that the Cāndra-vrtti
. was written later than the Cāndravyākarana
. by a monk known as Dharmadāsa. While later than the th century,
and therefore too late to be a direct source for Buddhaghosa, the Cāndra-vrtti
. is
generally considered to be earlier than the Kāśikā-vrtti.
Dharmadāsa
quotes
an
.
almost identical verse on nirukta to the one found in the Kāśikā-vrtti
. under C.
.. pr. sodarādīni,
the
equivalent
rule
to
A...
in
the
Cāndra-vyākara
na:
.
.
varnāgamo
varnaviparyayaś
ca dvau cāparau varnavikāranāśau,
dhā.
.
.

tos tadarthātiśayena yoga etac ca tatpañcavidham
. niruktam.


Pind : -.
CV : .

 –    ’    
Letter insertion, letter metathesis, the next two viz. letter modification and letter elision, and the connection of roots through the extension of their meaning – this is their five-fold semantic analysis.
e fact that the Kāśikā-vrtti
. and Cāndra-vrtti
. quote almost identical verses on
equivalent grammatical rules indicates a close relationship between the texts. In
addition, since Buddhaghosa also associates this verse with A..., further evidence, important for the history of South Asian grammatical culture, on the relationship between the Cāndra-vrtti
. and Kāśikā-vrtti
. can be gleaned. For instance,
it is well established that both of these commentaries are clearly related in some
way and oen are identical. However, there has been much debate on the relationship between the Cāndra-vrtti
. and the Kāśikā-vrtti,
. in particular with reference to
the directionality of influence between the two texts. Bronkhorst outlines three
scenarios that would explain the close relationship between the Cāndra-vrtti
. and
Kāśikā-vrtti:
“a)
the
former
borrowed
from
the
latter;
b)
the
latter
borrowed
from
.
the former; c) both borrowed, directly or indirectly, from a common source.”
Since it is now widely accepted that the Kāśikā-vrtti
. is later than the Cāndravrtti,
the
first
possibility
can
be
discarded
without
controversy. In his article,
.
Bronkhorst makes a strong case for the existence of an unknown Pāninian
com.
mentary that influenced both the Cāndra-vrtti
and
Kāśikā-v
rtti.
Bronkhorst
also
.
.
shows that the Kāśikā-vrtti
. itself recognises the existence of former commentaries,
which the Nyāsa, a commentary on the Kāśikā-vrtti,
. links to unknown authors
 Since Buddhaghosa’s use of the Astādhyāyī is
such as Cūlli, Bhat. ti,
Nalūra
etc.
.
..
slightly earlier than both the Cāndra-vrtti
. and Kāśikā-vrtti,
. his possible knowledge of a grammatical commentary that linked this nirukta verse to A...
would certainly add grist to Bronkhorst’s mill by indicating that there was an
earlier Pāninian
commentary that exhibited similar features to the Cāndra-vrtti
.
.
and Kāśikā-vrtti.
In the following three examples I investigate further hints that
.
Buddhaghosa was familiar with a Pāninian
commentary that was directly or in.
directly linked to the Cāndra-vrtti
and
Kāśikā-v
rtti.
.
.

For an overview of this debate see Vergiani .
Bronkhorst : .

Bronkhorst : .


 –    ’    
. Last Night’s Barley-Gruel (Sp , -,  ad Vin III , )
Another example that exhibits similarities between Buddhaghosa’s grammatical
analysis and the Cāndra-vrtti
. is in the Samantapāsādikā (Lovely roughout),
Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the vinaya, when he discusses the sentence atthi
nāma tāta Sudinna ābhidosikam
. kummāsam
. paribuñjissasī ti (“Is it possible, dear
Sudinna, that you are eating last night’s barley-gruel?”). Pind translates the passage as follows:
akkharacintakā pan’ ettha imam
. lakkhana
. m
. vadanti: anokappanāmarisanatthavasena etam
. atthi-nāma-sadde upapade paribhuñjissasī
ti anāgatavacanam
kata
m.
.
. tassāyam
. attho: atthi nāma – pe – paribhuñjissasī ti idam
. paccakkham
. pi aham
. na saddahāmi, na marisayāmī (so read for parisayāmī) ti.
“In this case, moreover, the grammarians (akkharacintakā), set forth
the following rule (lakkhana
. m):
. according to whether the meaning
is that something is not likely to take place, or is not to be tolerated
(anokappanāmarisanatthavasena), the future paribhuñjissasi is employed, when the expression ‘is it possible?’ is a sentence complement (atthi-nāma-sadde upapade). e meaning of the [sentence]
‘Is it possible…?’ is as follows: ‘I do not believe it, even though it is
evident, nor do I tolerate it.’”
In this discussion Buddhaghosa explains the function of the expression atthi nāma
at the beginning of the sentence in question and explains that it is used as a complement to a finite verb in the future tense to denote a sense of disbelief and censorship. Pind links the grammatical rule Buddhaghosa is referring to with A.

.. kimkilāstyarthe
su
. is used when
.
. lr. t.. is rule states that the future (lr. t)
co-occurring with [the words] “How comes it?” (kimkila)
or [the words] meaning
.
“Is it the case that?” (asti) to denote improbability or intolerance.

In opposition to the PTS edition, the reading na marisayāmī (Sp) should be read here since
parisayāmi (“I surround”) does not make sense in this context and since marisayāmi is the reading
found in Sāriputta’s tīkā.
Pind (:) also makes this amendment.
.

Sp : -.

Pind : .

Pind : .

Katre : .

 –    ’    
However, Pind does not speculate any further on the commentarial lineage
that mediates Buddhaghosa’s use of the As. tādhyāyī.
In this regard, it is significant
.
that the examples Buddhaghosa uses at the end of his discussion, viz. na saddahāmi, na marisayāmi, to illustrate the sense of this expression are found in both
the Kāśikā-vrtti
. on A... and the Cāndra-vrtti
. on C... kimkilāstyartha.
yor lr. t,. the equivalent sūtra in the Cāndra-vyākarana.
Buddhaghosa’s
discussion,
.
though, has the closest similarity to the Cāndra-vrtti:
.
kimkilaśabde
‘styarthesu
.
. ca satsu krodhāśraddhayor arthayor lr. d. eva
bhavati, na liṅ. kimkila
tatra bhavān vr. sala
na marsa.
. m
. yājayisyati?
.
.

yāmi, na śraddadhe, nāvakalpayāmi…
When there is the term kimkila
or asti, only the future (lrt)
.
. conveys
the meaning of anger or disbelief, not the optative (liṅ). [For example:] How, Sir, can you let an outcaste sacrifice! [is means] “I don’t
tolerate it!”, “I don’t believe it!”, “I don’t trust it!”.
e Mahābhāsya
. of Patañjali (st c. ), the earliest commentary on the As. tā.
dhyāyī before the Kāśikā-vrtti,
. does not comment on this rule ad loc., so Buddhaghosa was most likely working with an unknown commentary that used the same
grammatical examples for A... as the Cāndra-vrtti
Pind
. and Kāśikā-vrtti.
.
has shown exhaustively that Buddhaghosa is using the As. tādhyāyī
for his gram.
matical analysis and therefore it would seem that there existed an earlier Pāninian
.
commentary that shared certain aspects with the Cāndra-vrtti
. and Kāśikā-vrtti.
.
e possibility that the Cāndra-vrtti
com.
. was influenced by an earlier Pāninian
mentary on the As. tādhyāyī
would cast further doubt on the opinion of Oberlies,
.
who suggests that the common source of the Cāndra-vrtti
. and Kāśikā-vrtti
. is a
lost commentary by Devanandin on the Jainendra-vyākarana
(e
Grammar
of
.

Jinendra), a non-Pāninian
grammar
written
around
the
th
century.
.
. A Blind Man Mountain Climbing (Sv , - ad D I , )
e third example that hints at Buddhaghosa’s use of an unknown Pāninian
com.
mentary is found in a discussion in the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (Auspicious Clarification), his commentary to the Dīgha Nikāya. His discussion centres on an analysis


CV : .
Oberlies : -.

 –    ’    
of the expression acchariyam
. āvuso (“How wonderful, friend!”) in which he outlines the sense of the term acchariyam
. (“How wonderful!”). Pind translates his
discussion as follows:
tattha andhassa pabbatārohanam
. viya niccam
. na hotī ti acchariyam.
.

ayam
. tāva saddanayo.
“In this case acchariyam
. means something unusual (na...niccam),
. like
for instance a blind man who goes mountain climbing. is, in the
first place, is the grammatical derivation.”
Pind correctly links this discussion to A... āścaryam anitye, which states that
the word āścaryam is introduced with the initial increment suT. (s) inserted before
the phoneme c to denote something unusual (anitye). As an example of using
acchariyam in the sense of something unusual, Buddhaghosa refers to a blind
man mountain climbing. is example is not found in either the Kāśikā-vrtti
. on
A... or the Cāndra-vrtti
. on C... pāraskarādīni nāmni, the corresponding rule to A... in the Cāndra-vyākarana.
. Again, this example is not used by
Patañjali in his Mahābhāsya
ad
loc.,
and
therefore
Buddhaghosa was most likely
.
borrowing from examples in a later Pāninian
commentary. However, in both the
.
Kāśikā-vrtti
and
the
Cāndra-v
rtti,
a
similar
example,
āścaryam
.
.
. citram adbhutam
andho nāma parvatam āroksyati
(“It
is
wonderful,
strange
and
astonishing that a
.
blind man climbs a mountain!”) is quoted under A... śese
. lr. d. ayadau and
C... śese
l
r
t
respectively.
ese
grammatical
rules
state
that
the future tense
. ..
(lrt)
. is used, when co-occurring with an item other than yacca, yatra or yadi, to
 In this connection it is significant that, unlike the
express wonder (citrīkarana).
.
As. tādhyāyī,
the Cāndra-vyākarana
.
. does not use the term citrīkarana
. to denote
wonder but āścarya instead. Again, Patañjali does not refer to the example of a
blind man mountain climbing in his comments on A... either. It is possible,
therefore, that the example of a blind man mountain climbing became a standard
representation of āścarya (astonishment) aer Patañjali in the grammatical literature that Buddhaghosa and the authors of the Cāndra-vrtti
. and Kāśikā-vrtti
. were
familiar with.

Sv : .
Pind : .

Katre : .

Katre : .


 –    ’    
. A Cowherd Near the Ganges (Sp -, - ad Vin III , )
e final example considered here as evidence of Buddhaghosa’s use of a grammatical source that is no longer accessible occurs in a passage in the Samantapāsādikā discussing the word Verañjāyam
. (“near Verañjā”) in the sentence:
tena samayena buddho bhagavā Verañjāyam
. viharati Nalerupuci
.
mandamūle mahatā bhikkhusamghena
saddhim
.
. pañcamattehi
bhikkhusatehi.
At that time the blessed Buddha was dwelling near Verañjā at the
foot of the Naleru
nimba tree with a great saṅgha of five hundred
.
monks.
In his discussion of this passage, Buddhaghosa analyses Verañjāyam
. as samīpatthe
bhummavacanam,
. a locative (bhummavacanam)
. in the sense of proximity (samīpatthe). Buddhaghosa continues to discuss the two locatives, viz. Verañjāyam
.
and Nalerupucimandamūle,
in the following way:
.
tattha siyā yadi tāva bhagavā Verañjāyam
. viharati, ‘‘Nalerupuci
.
mandamūle’’ti na vattabbam,
atha
tattha
viharati
‘‘Verañjāya
m”
.
. ti na
vattabbam,
na
hi
sakkā
ubhayattha
ten’
eva
samayena
apubba
m
.
. acarimam
m.
. viharitun ti; na kho pan’ etam
. evam
. dat. thabba
.
. nanu avocumha ‘‘samīpatthe bhummavacanam”
ti,
tasmā
yathā
Gaṅgāyamu.
nādīnam
. samīpe goyūthāni carantāni ‘‘Gaṅgāya caranti, Yamunāya
carantī’’ti vuccanti evam idhāpi yadidam
. Verañjāya samīpe Naleru.
pucimandamūlam
tattha
viharanto
vuccati
‘‘Verañjāyam
.
. viharati
Nalerupucimandamūle’’
ti.
.
In this connection, if the Blessed One was dwelling just in Verañjā,
one should not say “at the foot of the Naleru
nimba tree”. en [if
.
he] was dwelling there (i.e. at the foot of the Naleru
nimba tree),
.

Vin : .
According to Malalasekera, Nalerupucimanda
was “a grove near Verañjā where the Buddha
.
spent part of his time on his visit to Nerañjā [sic]. Buddhaghosa explains that the chief tree to be
found there was a pucimanda or nimba-tree at the foot of which was a shrine dedicated to a yakkha
named Naleru.
. ” Malalasekera : .

Sp : .


 –    ’    
one should not say “in Verañjā”, since it is not possible to dwell in
both places at that same time simultaneously (apubbam
. acarimam).
.
However, one should not understand it in this way (evam)
as
I
have
.
stated that “the locative is in the sense of proximity”. erefore, since
one states that herds of cows, wandering in the vicinity of the [rivers]
Ganges and Yamuna, wander at the Ganges (gaṅgāya) and Yamuna
(yamunāya), so here also one says “dwelling there at the foot of the
Naleru
nimba tree in the proximity of Verañjā (verañjāyam)”.
.
.
As Pind points out for this example, there is no justification for the use of a locative in the sense of proximity in the As. tādhyāyī.
However, Pind traces the use
.
of the term sāmīpya (“proximity”) to an analogous discussion in the Mahābhāsya
.
 in which Patañjali makes
(MBh II , -) on A... pumyogād
ākhyāyām,
.
the statement tatsāmīpyāt: gaṅgāyām
. ghosa
. h. (“Since there is proximity with that,
[as in the example] ‘e cowherd colony is near the Ganges’”). However, elsewhere in the Mahābhāsya,
. Patañjali provides a three-fold definition of the locative
(adhikarana)
(“in the domain
. when explaining the locative case of samhitāyām
.
 He
of continuous utterance”) in the grammatical rule A. .. samhitāyām.
.
states that adhikarana
. m
. nāma triprakāram
. vyāpakam aupaślesika
. m
. vaisayikam
.
iti (“the locative is of three types, namely vyāpaka ‘pervasive’, aupaślesika
‘having
.
 ereclose contact’ and vaisayika
‘relating
to
a
particular
sphere
or
domain’”).
.
fore, it is possible that for Patañjali sāmīpya (“proximity”) was not a fully fledged
category of locative, but rather a sub-category of aupaślesika
(“having close con.
tact”) or vaisayika
(“relating
to
a
particular
sphere
or
domain”),
since he also pro.
vides the example gaṅgāyām
. gāvah. (“the cows are near the Ganges”) as a counterexample to vyāpaka (“pervasion”) in a discussion on A. ... sādhakatamam
.
 . It is possible then that Buddhaghosa utilised these strands of diskaranam
.
cussion in the Mahābhāsya
. to analyse the term Verañjāyam
. in the vinaya as a
locative expressing proximity.

Katre : .
MBh : . “[e affix … ṄīS. … is introduced aer … a nominal stem … (denoting a
masculine name) to designate a female by virtue of her relationship with the male (represented by
that masculine name) as a wife (pumyogāt).
”
.

Katre : .

MBh : .

Katre : . “…karana
. …denotes the means par excellence (sādhaka-tamam) (in relation
to the verbal stem).”

MBh : .


 –    ’    
However, the first evidence of “sāmīpya” (proximity) as a distinct category
of locative is found in the Cāndra-vrtti.
When commenting on the rule C...
.
saptamy ādhāre (the seventh case occurs in the sense of locus), the Cāndra-vrtti
.
provides examples to illustrate the functions of the locative:
ādhāre saptamī vibhaktir bhavati. () kata
. āste () ākāśe śakunayah.
() tilesu
tailam
()
gaṅgāyā
m
gāva
h
()
adhītī
vyākarana
.
.
.
. ity ādhāra

eva saptamī.
e seventh case occurs in the sense of locus. [For the examples] “he
sits on the mat”, “the birds are in the sky”, “the oil is in the seeds”, “the
cows are near the river”. “he is proficient in grammar”, the seventh
case is only in the sense of locus.
at the example gaṅgāyām
. gāvah. (“e cows are near the Ganges”) here is used
to represent proximity is revealed by the Pāli grammatical tradition. For instance,
the Moggallāna-vutti, a commentary on the th century Pāli grammar, the Moggallāna-vyākarana,
. uses the Cāndra-vrtti
. as a basis for its own discussions on
the locative case. It adopts the first four examples, including an equivalent for
gaṅgāyam
Its own commentary, the Moggallāna. gāvah,
. from the Cāndra-vrtti.
.
pañcikā analyses these four examples as representing () opasilesika (S. aupaślesika,
.
“having close contact”), () vesayika (S. vaisayika,
“relating to a particular sphere
.
or domain”), () vyāpaka (“pervasive”) and () sāmīpika (“having proximity”).
I have shown elsewhere that it is likely that the Moggallāna tradition of Pāli
grammar used commentaries to the Cāndra tradition of Sanskrit grammar, so that
its analysis of these examples is probably taken from the Cāndra tradition itself.
erefore, according to the Moggallāna tradition of Pāli grammar, the example
gaṅgāyam
. gāvah. in the Cāndra-vrtti
. represents a locative in the sense of proximity.
It is possible then that Buddhaghosa, instead of relying on the Mahābhāsya,
. also
adopted this classification of the locative, along with its example of “cows near the
Ganges”, from a later Pāninian
commentarial tradition that shared this feature
.
with the Cāndra-vrtti.
.

CV : .
MP : . ādhāro cāyam
. catubbidhā opasilesika-vesayikā-bhivyāpaka-sāmīpika-bhedato ti
yathākammam
. ūdāharati kate
. iccādi. “And this locus is four-fold, through the division into close
contact, belonging to a particular domain, pervasion and proximity. He explains the examples
respectively.”

Gornall, forthcoming.


 –    ’    
. Ideology of Grammar
ese hints at the commentarial lineage that mediated Buddhaghosa’s use of the
As. tādhyāyī
bring into question the ideological connections of his use of Sanskrit
.
grammar. For instance, as I showed in my introduction, Buddhaghosa’s use of
Sanskrit grammar has been used to support the view that he was a Brahmin who
converted to Buddhism. e Sanskritisation of post-canonical Pāli has also been
described as the result of the interaction of eravāda Buddhism with Brahmanical education systems. While Brahmanical culture may well have been a factor in
Buddhist knowledge of Sanskrit grammar, this should not overshadow the existence of Buddhist education systems and Buddhist claims on the Pāninian
gram.
matical tradition. For instance, Deshpande has observed that alongside the Brahmanical claims on the Pāninian
tradition, some Mahāyāna Buddhists considered
.

Pānini
. to be Buddhist and inspired by Avalokiteśvara. He states that “beginning
perhaps with the Kāśikā-vrtti,
gradu.
. we may then say that the Buddhist Pāninians
ally dispensed with the ‘Vedic’ ideology connected with the purposes of Pāninian
.
grammar and studied it for its very practical utility: to learn and describe the language.”
Furthermore, it is significant, as Pind has shown, that Buddhaghosa’s own
commentators almost always explain his grammatical analyses by reference to
 Dharmadāsa, the author of the
the Kāśikā-vrtti
. and possibly the Cāndra-vrtti.
.
Cāndra-vrtti,
. was almost certainly a Buddhist. In addition, Jayāditya, one of the

authors of the Kāśikā-vrtti,
. is oen stated to be a Buddhist too. However, this is
a point of controversy and the issue is still largely unclear. In any case, Buddhists
during this period were highly involved in Sanskrit grammar and therefore it is
quite possible that the eravāda Buddhist participation in Sanskrit grammatical
culture was articulated by Buddhist communities rather than Brahmanical communities. In addition, if my hypothesis proves correct and Buddhaghosa did in
fact utilise a source that was common to both the Kāśikā-vrtti
. and the Cāndravrtti,
. it is possible that this source also sprang from Buddhist literary culture.

Deshpande : .
Deshpande : .

Pind , .

Radicchi : .

“About the authors of the Kāśikāvrtti,
. i.e. Vāmana and Jayāditya, there is controversy about
whether they were Buddhists.” Deshpande : .


 –    ’    
Taking such hints in Buddhaghosa’s commentaries as keys to an alternative
intellectual history, it is possible to speculate that the early application of Sanskrit grammar to the Pāli language may be linked with Sanskrit-using Buddhist
traditions with which the authors of the Cāndra-vrtti
. and Kāśikā-vrtti
. were also
familiar. Such an alternative view of Buddhaghosa’s engagement with other Buddhist groups would support Kalupahana’s opinion that Buddhaghosa represents
a “syncretic” eravāda. He states that Buddhaghosa’s great knowledge of other
Buddhist sects seeps into his writing and that he introduces many doctrines of
sects such as the Sarvāstivāda and Yogācāra into eravāda material. He imagines
an alternative eravāda history in which “the eras, who according to Buddhaghosa, invited him to write the commentaries, were actually the monks who were
keeping a vigilant eye over the manner in which he interpreted the teachings.”
. Conclusions
Buddhaghosa’s references to grammar indicate an engagement by the eravāda
saṅgha with a pan-South Asian grammatical culture. His use of Sanskrit grammar
in the th century comes at a pivotal juncture in the history of the Sanskrit grammatical traditions and his commentaries show how Pāli literature can be used
to investigate this period. An analysis of the commentarial lineages he may have
been working with reveals that his use of Sanskrit grammar does not prove that he
interacted with Brahmanical groups but may rather reflect an openness to other
Buddhist literary cultures. Moreover, the eravāda literati also cultivated their
own traditions of Sanskrit grammar, which were separate from both Brahmanical and Mahāyānist usage. erefore, much work is needed to provide a more
nuanced understanding of the eravāda Buddhist participation in South Asian
literary cultures and the influence it had on the later Pāli tradition.

Kalupahana : .

 –    ’    
Bibliography
Primary Sources
A (As. tādhyāyī):
Katre, Sumitra M., trans. As. tādhyāyī
of Pānini.
Austin: University
.
.
.
of Texas Press, .
CV (Cāndra-vyākarana):
Chatterji, Kshitish Chandra, ed. Cāndravyākarana
. of Can.
dragomin Part  (Chapters -). Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute: Pune, .
Chatterji, Kshitish Chandra, ed. Cāndravyākarana
. of Candragomin Part  (Chapters
-). Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute: Pune, .
KVr. (Kāśikā-vrtti):
Shastri, Dwarikadas and Kalikaprasad Shukla, eds. Nyāsa or
.
Pañcikā Commentary of Ᾱcārya Jinendrabuddhipāda and Padamañjarī of Haradatta Miśra on e Kāśikāvrtti
of Pānini)
of
. (Commentary on e As. tādhyāyī
.
.
Vāmana-Jayāditya, Part V (II, III & IV Sections of Chapter  & I and II Sections
of Chapter ). Prachya Bharati Prakashan: Varanasi, .
MBh (Mahābhāsya):
Joshi, Shri Bhargava Shastri, ed. Vyākaranamahābhā
sya
.
. of
.
Patañjali with the Commentary Bhāsyapradīpa
of
Kaiya
ta
Upādhyāya
&
the
Su.
.
per Commentary Bhāsya
Pradīpoddyota
of
Nāgeśa
Bha
t
ta,
Volume
V
Sthānavidhi.
..
rūpam
Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan,
.
. (Chapter VI of As. tādhyāyī).
.
Kielhorn, F., ed. e Vyākarana-Mahābhā
sya
.
. of Patañjali, ird Edition revised and
furnished with additional readings, references and select critical notes by MM. K.
V. Abhyankar, Volume . Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, .
Kielhorn, F., ed. e Vyākarana-Mahābhā
sya
.
. of Patañjali, ird Edition revised and
furnished with additional readings, references and select critical notes by MM. K.
V. Abhyankar, Volume . Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, .
Kielhorn, F., ed. e Vyākarana-Mahābhā
sya
.
. of Patañjali, ird Edition revised and
furnished with additional readings, references and select critical notes by MM. K.
V. Abhyankar, Volume  Adhyāyas VI, VII and VIII. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute, .
MP (Moggallāna-pañcikā): Śrī Dharmānanda, ed. Moggallāna pañcikā suttavuttisametā: anurādhapure thūpārāmamahāvihāramajjhāvutthena mahāsaddikena
Sirimatā Moggallānamahāsāminā viracitā. P.A. Peries Appuhamy Wirahena, Saccasamuccaya Press: Colombo, .
Vin (Vinaya): Oldenberg, Hermann, ed. e Vinaya Pitaka
. m:
. One of the Principle
Buddhist Holy Scriptures in the Pāli Language. Vol.III. e Suttavibhaṅga, first
part. (Pārājika, Samghādisesa,
Aniyata, Nissaggiya.) London: Williams and Nor.
gate, .

 –    ’    
Vism (Visuddhimagga): Rhys Davids, C.A.F., ed. e Visuddhi-magga of Buddhaghosa. London: Pali Text Society, .
Sp (Samantapāsādikā): Takakusu, J. and M. Nagai, eds. Samantapāsādikā: Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Vinaya Pitaka,
Vol. . London: Pali Text Society,
.
.
Sv (Sumaṅgala-vilāsinī): Rhys Davids, T.W. and J. Estlin Carpenter, eds. e Sumaṅgala-vilāsinī, Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Dīgha Nikāya. London: Pali Text
Society, .
Secondary Sources
Bronkhorst, Johannes. “e Cāndra-vyākarana:
. some questions.” In Indian Linguistic Studies: Festschri in Honour of George Cardona, edited by M. Deshpande and
P.E. Hook, -. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, .
Conan Doyle, Sir Arthur. e Complete Sherlock Holmes, Volume . Introduction and
Notes by Kyle Freeman. New York: Barnes & Noble Classics, .
Deshpande, Madhav M. “Who Inspired Pānini?
Reconstructing the Hindu and Bud.
dhist Counter-Claims.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. , No. 
(Jul. - Sep., ): -.
Franke, Otto R. Geschichte und Kritik der Einheimischen Pāli Grammatik und Lexicographie. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner, .
Gornall, A.M. Buddhism and Grammar in th Century Sri Lanka. Unpublished PhD
esis, University of Cambridge. (Forthcoming)
Kalupahana, D.J. “Schools of Buddhism in Early Ceylon.” e Ceylon Journal of the
Humanities, (): -.
Law, Bimala Charan. Buddhaghosa. Bombay: Bombay Branch Royal Asiatic Society,
.
Malalasekera, G.P. Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names. Vol. II. N-H. London: Luzac &
Company Ltd. .
Norman, K.R. Pāli Literature: Including the Canonical Literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit of all the Hīnayāna Schools of Buddhism. Otto Harrossowitz: Wiesbaden,
.
Oberlies, omas. “Das zeitliche und ideengeschichtliche Verhältnis der Cāndravrtti
. zu anderen V(ai)yākaranas
. (Studien zum Cāndravyākarana
. III).” St II 
(Festschri Paul ieme), (): -.
Pind, Ole. “Studies in the Pāli Grammarians I.” Journal of the Pali Text Society, XIII
(): -.

 –    ’    
Pind, Ole. “Studies in the Pāli Grammarians II..” Journal of the Pali Text Society, XIV
(): -.
Radicchi, Anna. “Two Buddhist Grammarians: Candragomin and Jayāditya”. In Indian Linguistic Studies: Festschri in Honour of George Cardona, edited by M.
Deshpande and P.E. Hook, -. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, .
Vergiani, Vincenzo. “A Quotation from the Mahābhāsyadīpikā
of Bhartrhari
in the
.
.
Pratyāhāra Section of the Kāśikāvrtti”.
In Studies in the Kāśikāvrtti.
e Sec.
.
tion on Pratyāhāras: Critical Edition, Translation and Other Contributions, edited
by Pascale Haag and Vincenzo Vergiani, -. Società Editrice Fiorentina:
Firenze, .

e Legend of the Earth Goddess and the Buddha
Paisarn Likhitpreechakul
[email protected]
A piece of Buddhist iconography which is widely found throughout mainland Southeast Asia is the Earth deity wringing out her hair to drown Māra
and his army at the time of the Buddha’s enlightenment. is feature of the
enlightenment story, however, is not found in the Tipitaka.
e author of.
fers an interpretation of the iconography as an allegorical visualization of
the Buddha’s way to attain enlightenment.
One of the most marvellous murals in ailand is painted on the wall facing
the Emerald Buddha.
e soon-to-be Buddha is seen seated under the Bo tree with his le hand
cradled in his lap and his right hand placed next to the right knee with fingers
touching the ground. On both sides, Māra – the evil one – and his army are seen
attempting the final assault to prevent him from attaining enlightenment, but they
are being engulfed by a flood of water.
e story, as given in the introduction to the collection of Jātaka stories, is
that the Buddha was sitting all alone in meditation when Māra with his host confronted him. Having failed to frighten the Buddha with weapons, Māra began a
verbal assault. He claimed that he had attained the moral perfection of generosity,
and his host all roared that they bore witness to that; but who, cried Māra, could
bear witness to the Buddha’s having done the same? e Buddha said that in his
birth as Vessantara he had attained the perfection of generosity. He said, “You

is is a much revised version of an article published in e Nation (Bangkok) on  May
, Visākha Pūjā day. e author is indebted to Professor Richard Gombrich and Professor Peter
Skilling for advice and assistance.
.  (): –. ©  Paisarn Likhitpreechakul
 –         
have sentient witnesses, while in this place I have no sentient witness… But to my
gis this solid earth, though insentient, is a witness.” At this he withdrew his right
hand from inside his robe, extended it towards the earth, and asked her whether
or not she was his witness. With the words “I was your witness then” the Earth
made so great a noise that Māra’s elephant mount knelt before the Buddha and
Māra’s forces fled in every direction.
Figure : e scene of the Buddha’s enlightenment and the Earth Goddess
(Wat Phra Yeun Yukollabat, Uttaradit)
ere is no flood in this version. e Earth Goddess, who is called Mae oranī in ai, loudly proclaimed her assent, and her roar alone was enough to
scatter Māra’s army. In the Indian tradition the Buddha’s gesture as he calls her to


e Jātaka, ed. Fausbøll, I, .
is corresponds to the Sanskrit word dhāranī,
. one of the many words for “the earth”.

 –         
witness is known as the bhūmisparśa mudrā, “the gesture of touching the earth”;
in ailand it is called Māravijaya, “the conquest of Māra”, because this was the
decisive moment at which Māra was defeated. As Māra is the personification of
death (marana),
. triumph over Māra is triumph over death. Nirvana is also known
as “deathless” – freedom from rebirth and re-death.
In Buddhist iconography the Earth deity is usually shown as a female figure.
In Sri Lanka she is normally shown as very small and depicted only down to the
waist. In ailand, on the other hand, she stands as a graceful figure in the sinuous
pose known as tribhaṅga, “doubly bent”. Most strikingly, she is wringing out her
tresses, and the torrent of water from them is drowning Māra’s army.
is scene is portrayed in countless temples across ailand. I reproduce here
two typical murals: from Wat Phra Yeun Yukollabat in the author’s hometown of
Uttaradit (Figure ), and from Wat Phra at Doi Suthep near Chiangmai (Figure
).
Given the popularity of the tale, it will come as a surprise to many that this
particular story cannot be found in the Tipitaka.
Although there are stories in
.
other Buddhist traditions of the earth bearing witness in various ways to the Buddha’s merits, the Earth Goddess’s wringing out her hair to drown Māra’s army is
unique to mainland Southeast Asia.
In her comprehensive thesis on the subject, Elizabeth Guthrie wrote, “Although no textual source for the hair-wringing earth deity has yet been identified
outside of mainland Southeast Asia, her iconography and story are too ancient
and widely distributed across the cultures of the mainland to be attributed to one
particular location.”
She went on to conclude: “Many different stories, images and rituals about
the deeds of the Buddhist earth deity at the time of the Enlightenment emerged
in India during the first centuries of the Common Era in conjunction with the
biography of the Buddha. ese were then disseminated, along with Buddhism,
throughout Asia during the first millennium of the Common Era, probably in
successive waves, but most definitely from northeastern India, during the Pāla
period.”

Guthrie, Elizabeth (). “A Study of the History and Cult of the Buddhist Earth Deity in
Mainland Southeast Asia”. PhD thesis. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, p.ii.

Guthrie, p..

 –         
She attributes the popularity of the hair-wringing episode to its incorpora composed in the Lanna kingdoms during the
tion into the Pathamasambodhi,
.
th or th century, adding that, “is text was disseminated in both Pāli and
the vernaculars throughout mainland Southeast Asia and eventually became the
standard Life of the Buddha in the region.”
In these popular versions, the torrent from the Earth Goddess’ hair is said
to be the mass of libation water poured by the Bodhisattva in his previous lives.
Although this makes good sense as a reaction to Māra’s claim of his own generosity, it leaves to be explained why the flow of generosity should have the effect
of drowning Māra and his army. erefore, the author would like to propose an
alternative interpretation of this iconography with a stronger canonical relevance.
e basis of the metaphor of karma is growing plants. e act which produces karma is called a seed (bīja), the end result a fruit (phala). e Tipitaka
.
is full of passages referring to the karmic jungle, which one is urged to radically
demolish. e Ratana Sutta of the Sutta Nipāta says of those who attain nirvana:
te khīnabījā
avirūlhichandā,
“Destroyed are their germinal seeds; their desires no
.
.
longer grow.”
is metaphor is extended when the moisture which allows plants to grow
is compared to the desire/craving which creates (bad) karma. Verse  in the
Tanhā
(“Craving”) section of the Dhammapada reads: “Everywhere flow the
.
streams, Everywhere the creepers sprout and stand. Seeing how the creeper has
grown, Cut it off at the root with your understanding.” (Savanti sabbadhī sotā, latā
ubbhijja tit. thati.
Tam
.
. ca disvā latam
. jātam
. mūlam
. paññāya chindatha.) e Pāli
word sota literally means stream/flood/torrent and is oen used metaphorically
to refer to streams of cravings. Its double meanings point to the use of water as
a metaphor for cravings in the context of karmic growth. e word paññā, “wisdom/understanding”, is oen said to cut through or cut off.
is reading is further supported by Bhikkhunī Selā’s response to Māra in
Samyutta
Nikāya: “As when a seed is sown in a field / It grows depending on
.
a pair of factors: / It requires both the soil’s nutrients / And a steady supply of
moisture: / Just so the aggregates and elements …” e Pāli word sineha, here
translated as “moisture”, also has the meaning of affection/love/desire/lust – the

Ed. George Coedès and Jacqueline Ver Eecke, Pali Text Society, .
Sutta-nipāta .

I, , verses –, trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi.


 –         
same as its principal usage in the ai language. e simile here is thus built on a
pun.
In a sutta called “Seeds” the Buddha says: “e four stations of consciousness
should be seen as like the earth element. Delight and lust should be seen as like the
water element. Consciousness together with its nutriment should be seen as like
the five kinds of seeds...” And elsewhere he says: “Kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture to establish the consciousness of beings
obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving in a low (middling, superior)
cosmic stratum. is is how future renewed existence is produced.” (Kammam
khettam,
dhātuyā
. viññāna
. m
. bījam, tanhā
. sineho hīnāya (majjhimāya, panītāya)
.

viññāna
m
pati
t
thita
m;
eva
māyati
m
punabbhavābhinibbatti
hoti).
. .
..
.
.
.
It is, therefore, plausible that the Buddhist iconographers may have given this
analogy visible expression. Nirvana means eradicating karmic growth. e rest of
the world drowns in the moisture (sineha) of the desire which leads to continual
rebirth. is fatal flood is visualized as emerging from the Earth, just as in the
above metaphors and similes the earth is where the seeds of karma are planted
and receive the moisture which allows them to grow. At his enlightenment, the
Buddha has escaped all that forever; he is sitting there high and dry.
is interpretation may also explain why one of the epithets for an arahant
(enlightened one) is khīnāsava.
As khīna
.
. means “waned away”, and āsava literally means “influx” an arahant is therefore one who no longer experiences the
stream of cravings.
e iconography thus carries two messages at once. On the one hand, the
Earth is the Buddha’s decisive ally who help him at the crucial moment to win
the battle against Māra. On the other, she does so in a way that vividly illustrates
that the Buddha’s victory is not only over Death but also over Desire; those who
stand against him are overwhelmed by a form of death which symbolises their
own desires.
e scene of the Buddha’s enlightenment is, therefore, given a stronger interpretation, which not only depicts the Buddha’s triumph over death, but also the
particular way in which he attained it: cessation of cravings leads to cessation of
death and rebirth.

Samyutta
Nikāya III, , trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi.
.
Anguttara Nikāya I, –, trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Richard Gombrich, What the Buddha ought, pp.–.


 –         
If this interpretation of the Earth Goddess is correct, it reinforces the emphasis Buddhism places on freedom from cravings. It is, therefore, unfortunate that
many ai Buddhists blindly believe in swindlers who dream up various outrageous methods to “cut the bonds of karma” for a fee, when all they need to do is
work on their own desire.
Figure : Wat Phra at Doi Suthep near Chiangmai

Ven. Walpola Rahula and the politicisation of the Sinhala Sangha
Suren Raghavan
[email protected]
is essay tries to describe the influence of the Bhikkhus in Sinhala politics
as demonstrated by the ideology, work and life of the Ven. Walpola Rahulperhaps the most influential scholar monk in the modern Sangha of Sri
Lanka. e attempt is to show how the Maha Sangha became the key actors
in the continuum of an ideology of Sinhala ethnicity, their ownership of the
island and duty to protect Sinhala Buddhist culture. Rahula’s contribution
has created a new brand of Sangha who are committed to a different political
path to redefine Sinhala Buddhism and modern Sri Lanka.
In many states, the last few decades of the th century witnessed the beginning of a rapid but systematic desecularisation of the public space. e process
could even be violent, with / standing as an extreme manifestation; but the
phenomenon went much deeper, and had transformative effects within, as well as
between, states. Some have labelled this a ‘new cold war’ (Juergensmeyer a,
b, , , ) or an apolitical re-secularisation (Beyer ) generated within a particular religious discourse (Haynes ). But on closer inspection, dialectical negotiation between sovereign state power on the one hand and
non-state spiritual power centres on the other is neither new nor restricted to a
particular faith or nation. Almost all major religions, whether western or eastern,
renouncer or redeemer, monotheist or agnostic, have contested for sovereignty,
even before the idea of a state came into existence. e church/king relationship,
and the idea of Ummah or dharmaraj, are well documented in the annals of political history.
.  (): –. ©  Suren Raghavan
 –        
Yet while the politics of religion has received the attention of a growing number of comparative political scientists, the great majority have focused on global
or regional trends (such as globalisation, transnational diasporas, international
religious terrorism, etc), at the cost of ignoring the microdynamics of this process
of desecularisation. e power of religion to shape and direct the mind-set of an
individual state is largely ignored, or at best marginalised. A notion of faith, as
an independent variable affecting intra- as much as inter-state relations, is oen
pushed aside as epiphenomenal, subjective, and hence invalid from the viewpoint
of a realist fixation on a certain type of power. But a re-assessment is long overdue,
even if one takes a purely positivist approach. e power of theo-politics and its
impact on the world today should impel us to adjust our focus: the relationship of
religion to politics, far from being marginal, should be at the centre of the study.
An open-minded but careful survey around the world, especially in relation to
conflict resolution, democracy and justice, will compel us to re-engage with the
instrumental capacity of faith politics with newer methodological persuasiveness
and theoretical creativity. To achieve such an outcome in comparative politics, a
move beyond the ‘paradigms war’ (Bellin ) is needed.
Sinhala Sangha activism
Within the scope of political science, one cannot understand the processes of accessing and using power, individually or collectively, without studying those who
aspire to alter the course of their society. e lives and ideologies of those individuals who venture to influence a polity must be studied in order to understand its
social values and governing conditions. Just as there cannot be a balanced understanding of Buddhism without studying the life and work of the Buddha, so the
same holds true for any other social movement that succeeds in creating inroads
in its immediate society and its successors. e social dynamics which have been
supported or reintroduced by the politically active Sangha in modern Sri Lanka
cannot be analysed without understanding the primary motivations for their political engagement. ese motivations, if we can identify them in their original
form, will enable us to unlock the motivating ideas that legitimised the Sangha’s
entry into mainstream politics. e most reliable way of understanding this motivation, I suggest, is to study the life of a few key selected Sangha members, who
in many ways shaped the modern political paradigm in Sri Lanka.
e arrival, establishment, growth and defence of Buddhism in Sri Lanka have
always happened under the leadership of Sangha. Aer the initial introduction of

 –        
Buddhism from India in the third century , the Sinhala Sangha acted as leaders of the Sasana. roughout its  years of survival, the Sinhala Sangha has
performed two fundamental functions:
(i) Protecting and promoting eravada Buddhism
(ii) Fighting those who are a threat to their faith
e Mahāvamsa
. is the epic record of the historical role of the Sangha and those
kings who helped them achieve those aims. Records suggest that one can identify
at least seven high points of Sangha activism in recent history.
Period Key persons
Tamil King of Kandy, Kirthi Siri Raja–
singhe

Ven. Velivita Saranankara
–

–

–

–

–

–

Dutch Rulers
Ven. Ambagahapitiye Gnanawimala
Wesleyan Missionaries: Rev. Daniel
John Gogerly, Rev.
Spence Hardy,
Ven. Mohottiwatte Gunananda, Ven.
Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala
Arrival of the eosophists
Col. Henry Olcott Anagarika Dharmapala
D.S. Senanayake
Ven. Walpola Rahula
SWRD Bandaranaike
Ven. Walpola Rahula
Ven. Mapitigama Buddharakkhita
Chandrika Kumaratunge
Velupillai Prabakaran
Mahinda Rajapakse
Ven. Gangodawila Soma
Ven. Athuraliye Rathana
Key Features
Re-establishing the Sangha ordination
aer some  years
Helping the Lower Caste Sangha Ordination beginning with the Amarapura
chapter, helped by the Burmese Sangha
Defending Sinhala Buddhism against
Christian missionaries
 great public debates – Panadura vadaya
Protestant form of lay Buddhism
Buddhist schools
Buddhist flag
Sangha initiative for organised demand
for Independence
Buddhism made state religion. Sinhala
made the official language of the state.
Sri Lanka declared a unitary state
Urging the Sinhalas to return to their
Buddhism. Advocating a Buddhist Government led by the Sangha.
Justifying war against the Tamil Tigers
Rejecting the Federalist Proposals
ese protest waves aimed to reform Sinhala Buddhism (-), to defend
the same (-), to entrench it in the Constitution and public life () and to war against what threatened it (-). A trajectory which
started from reviving the Buddhism of the Sinhalas changed into waging a war
to defend their language and their right to rule a unitary island. is can be seen
as re-ideologising the key themes of the Mahāvamsa:
the uniqueness of Sinhala
.

 –        
Buddhism, the supremacy of the Sinhala race, their legitimacy as rulers of this
blessed land whatever the context.
During the period of transformative political opportunities and challenges
from  to , as in earlier periods of history, many members of the Sangha
came forward to interpret, influence and redirect the politics, and ultimately the
state of Sri Lanka. Amid the deeply destabilising forces of globalisation that had
shaken the foundations of the traditional security of Sri Lanka society, these monks
found a new and more energised moral authority to intervene from the sacred
sphere to the secular. Added to this external influence, Sri Lanka was facing political failure, largely due to the protracted ethnic war. e majority of monks
either watched passively or hoped for immediate dramatic change. However, a
section of the Sangha decided to make a political intervention. From this mobilisation emerged a few key actors as yugapuruşa or ‘heroes of the age’ – those
who could symbolise an epoch and become the redeemers of the Rata,
. Jātiya and
Āgama (country, race and religion). With a weak political authority unable to
find a new direction, these monks became a natural focus of hope for political
recovery.
For a number of reasons, I have selected the work of Venerable Walpola Rahula
to explain this political phenomenon. ey include, but are not limited to, the
deep influence he exerted on the politics of Sinhala society during the period under study. He decontextualised the historicised Māhavamsa
. ideology and managed to mobilise this image as an overarching political force. is article is not a
biography of this venerable activist. I confine myself to trying to uncover the key
motives of a learned and eminent monk who had renounced this world but nevertheless returned to a political life, and to showing his impact by shiing paradigms
in a paradoxical way.
Life and early work of Walpola Rahula (–)
By the middle of the s the British Raj, which had paid a historic price to
stop the Nazi advance in Europe, was forced to rethink her colonial politics, especially in Asia, where Russia and China had emerged as new and permanent
power blocks (Elbaum and Lazonick :; Jones :). Holding on to
th-century colonial politics was promising to bring more harm than benefit.
e resulting changed post-war foreign policy compelled the British Government
to draw up plans to withdraw from India and Ceylon almost simultaneously. In
India, by this time, M.K. Gandhi had done enough work to ignite the freedom

 –        
struggle. Many factors, combined with Gandhi’s historic non-violent political engagement, had by the late s rendered inevitable the political independence of
India.
Sri Lanka stood to benefit from this major regional realignment, even in the
absence of any similar charismatic leadership or state-wide agitation for independence among the Sri Lankan political élites (Manor , , ). Instead,
the political class, which had benefited from the trade and plantation sector of the
British administration, sought only a comfortable compromise with the colonists.
e exclusive and inter-related families at the top of the power structure in Sri
Lanka preferred to continue most, if not all, forms of colonial ties, which conferred immediate benefits on them as a ruling class (Jayawardane , Moore
). But Sri Lanka’s ruling class has never consisted only of civilians. As has often happened in the country’s history, the politically motivated, oen urbanised,
middle-class sections of the Sangha saw an opportunity to become involved, and
to regain their historic influence.
It was the Sangha who first embraced the radical spirit of the Indian movement for freedom and independence. Two Sangha academic centres in the island
by then had produced many influential monks who were positioning themselves
as key social authorities. Anthropologist H.L. Seneviratne () has vividly documented the social transformation of these monks, as they exchanged their lokuttara (supramundane) spiritual responsibilities for laukika (worldly) secular power
politics. ey moved from the position of spiritual guides, who guide society towards benefits in the other world, to that of political agitators who argue for a
certain order in this world. is was a natural extension of the pioneering work
of the lay Buddhist revivalists Anagarika Dharmapala and Olcott, which had yet to
mature. Dharmapala and others who travelled to India for Buddhist missionary
work had witnessed the radical political transformation sweeping that land. ey
had also experienced the transforming role of the religious authorities in shaping
the politics to come in an independent state. ese mobilised members of the
Sangha were keen to generate and institutionalise the same social activism, and
consequent impact, back in Sri Lanka. e faculty of Vidyalankara was arguing
for the formation of a more radical opposition, aiming to transform the immediate political future of the island. Among them, Walpola Rahula was a powerful
articulator with an appealing style of writing.
Rahula was born in the Walpola area of Matara District, in the deep south
of Sri Lanka, on  May . For historical reasons, southern Sri Lankan Bud-

 –        
dhism had always been the radical basis for an agitating Protestant Buddhism
(Malalgoda ). Anagarika Dharmapala, Hikkaduve Sri Sumangala and Mohottivatte Gunananda are three examples of southern Buddhist reformists who
had created a permanent radical and political facet of modern Sinhala Buddhism.
Rahula’s social background was one in which radical reformist Buddhist social
engagement was a spiritual movement with a long and proud history.
Rahula entered a temple school as a boy and was ordained by the age of fieen.
A promising student, he continued with Buddhist studies alongside his secular
curriculum, including mathematics and English literature. Rahula became the
subject of a rare social debate when he entered the then Ceylon University College as the first member of the Sinhala Sangha to enter a secular university. His
upper middle class social background supported this liberal move. e opportunity to read and study secular literature made Rahula immediately question some
of the basic popular notions and practices of the Sangha of his time. e young
monk soon became popular for his critical engagement with the traditional establishment of the temple and its social inactivity. Rahula took to preaching – of
a reformist kind, calling on the institutionalised Sangha to rediscover their lost
heritage.
Rahula disseminated his calls for reform through a series of pamphlets published in – under the title Satyodaya Patrikā (‘Truth-revealing papers’).
Learning from the success of Christian missionaries at disseminating religious
discourse through printed material, Rahula found the free distribution of his
printed views on Buddhism, Sangha and Sinhala society a far more effective
method of social engagement than the limited alternative of preaching at temples to those who were willing to gather. Rahula was keen to exploit any platform
that could be used to advance his argument, thus redefining the role of the Sangha
in society and the polity governing it.
In the early s, Rahula became an active participant in the workers’ struggle to gain fair wages and improved working conditions from the major plantations and trading companies, whose owners were oen British investors. As a
young, articulate monk, he was a natural leader in protest activities. Rahula’s radicalism threatened the established order, and he was imprisoned for a while for
his active role in inciting labour strikes. As has oen happened in history when
a radical is imprisoned, the effect only made him a more determined social reformer (Rodriguez ; Cuthbertson :-). On his release, Rahula gave
priority to calls for serious reform issued in the first place by his associates in

 –        
the traditional Sangha and then by other sectors of Sinhala society, notably lay
Buddhists and political leaders. He gained popular support for his radical criticism of established, property-owning senior monks for their abject failure to lead
Sinhala society to its full potential. Rahula’s social agitation was well-grounded in
the universal compassion of eravada Buddhist theology, which seeks liberation
and happiness for all.
Rahula by now fully understood the potential of the written word, and in late
 he published a manifesto for the future. is was in many ways an answer
to his traditionalist critics. Bhikşuvāgē Urumaya or ‘e Heritage of the Bhikshu’,
was eventually to become the manual for contemporary Sangha politics in Sri
Lanka. It was published two years before the British le Sri Lanka. us Rahula
by his single, comparatively small, yet strategic and well-formulated intervention
laid the foundation for a redefinition of the role of the Sangha in an independent Buddhist state aer  years of European colonial occupation. All modern
Sangha activists, irrespective of affiliation or ideology, have held this text as their
handbook for secular political activism. e book became, even for conservatives,
a cornerstone of the Sangha’s justification for secular and especially political engagement. Running into its fourteenth edition in  and with thousands of
copies distributed to almost every functioning temple library in the island, the
‘Heritage’ in many ways permanently altered the traditional understanding of the
dialectical relationship between the Sinhala Sangha and the society in which they
live.
Bhiksuvāgē
Urumaya: e Heritage of a Bhikshu
.
e text of the Heritage, a work that ‘has influenced the monkhood more than
any other in the recent history of Sri Lankan eravada Buddhism’ (Seneviratne
p.), remains, for at least two reasons, of historic importance for understanding and analysing modern Sangha politics in Sri Lanka. First, the book, while
published as a single text, in fact represented the collective articulation of a preindependence discourse of the activist Sangha. Second, it laid the ideological
foundation for the post-independent/contemporary politics of the Sangha. Largely
middle-class and urbanised, with above average education and exposure to foreign or regional societies, these comparatively élitist monks were eager to construct a social order where the once glorified political power of the Sangha would
be re-established in the independent Sri Lanka. e Vidyalankara faculty, which
envisaged a modern Sri Lanka defined only by her Buddhist past, led the dis
 –        
course, and acted as the bridge-builders between a textualised past and an imagined future, in which the Sangha would take centre stage in the social and political
order of Sinhala society.
e Heritage was not an isolated work. At least two previous texts paved the
radical path for Rahula’s publication. One was published on  February ,
when the entire faculty of the Vidyalankara unanimously put forward what came
to be known as the ‘Declaration of Vidyalankara’, a text that called for a radical reestablishment of the powers of the Sangha in the political system. In concluding
their Declaration, the faculty claimed:
‘In the ancient days, according to the records of history, the welfare of the nation and the welfare of the religion were regarded as
synonymous terms by the laity as well as by the Sangha. e divorce
of religion from the nation was an idea introduced into the minds of
the Sinhalese by invaders from the West, who belonged to an alien
faith. It was a convenient instrument of astute policy to enable them
to keep the people in the subjugation in order to rule the country as
they pleased.
It was in their own interest and not for the welfare of the people
that these foreign invaders attempted to create a gulf between the
bhikkhus and the laity - a policy they implemented with diplomatic
cunning. We should not follow their example and should not attempt
to withdraw bhikkhus from society. Such conduct would assuredly
be a deplorable act of injustice, committed against our nation, our
country and our religion.
erefore, we publicly state that both our bhikkhus and our Buddhist leaders should avoid the pitfall of acting hastily, without deliberation and foresight, and should be beware of doing a great disservice to our nation and religion.
Feb,   Signed K. Pannasara Chief High Priest of Colombo
and Chilaw district’ (Heritage:)
It is clear that the collective Sangha at Vidyalankara in arguing a new social order
once again borrowed from the past and re-introduced the traditional notion of
‘integrated governance’ of religion and race, as Vesna Wallace has recently shown
(:). is interpretation was significant. It sprang from historicised Sinhala
Buddhist ideology where violence, if needed, was justified by a ‘just war’ thesis

 –        
(Bartholomeusz , ). For these monks, as leading visionaries of an independent Sri Lanka, ‘our nation’ meant the Sinhala race, ‘our country’ meant the
island ruled by the Buddhists, and ‘our religion’ meant Sinhala Buddhism. It was
actualising the ideology of the Mahāvamsa
. in modern Sri Lanka, in many ways
denying and dismissing the multi-faith, multi-ethnic social structure of the island:
a political tragedy from which the island has not yet been able to recover.
e second text important for the context of the Heritage was the Kelaniya
(Temple) Declaration of Political Independence. On the strategically important and
culturally charged full moon day of  January , at an elaborate ceremony
led by the chief monk of this historic temple, a group of monks made what in
modern terms may be termed as a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI).
ey declared Sri Lanka a sovereign, independent state with full rights to selfdetermination without foreign domination, and all foreign occupations illegal and
immoral. Aer tracing the historical glory of the land, a brief statement declared:
‘We, therefore, the Sangha of Sri Lanka, the Guardians of Life and
Liberty and Sponsors of the Wellbeing and Happiness of the people of
this island, assembled on this hallowed spot sanctified by the touch
of the feet of the Master, do hereby declare and publish on behalf
of the people, that Sri Lanka claims its right to be a Free and Independent Sovereign State, that it has resolved to absolve itself from all
allegiances to any Power, State or Crown and that all political connection between it and any other state is hereby dissolved; and that as
a free and Independent Sovereign State it has full right to safeguard
its Freedom and Independence, to contract alliances and do all other
acts and things which Independent States may by right do.
For due recognition of the rectitude of our action and for the support of the claim made under this Declaration, we, the Sangha of
Sri Lanka, hereby appeal to the conscience and sense of justice of all
right-thinking people of the world.
Declared on this auspicious anniversary of the Buddha’s first visit
to Sri Lanka, Monday, the full-moon day of Duruthu in the year 
of the Buddhist era in the new Gandhakuti of the Sri Kalyani Raja
Maha Vihara’ (Heritage:)
e declaration could not be made in isolation. Discussions to hand over rule
were well under way. However, by anticipating actual independence, the Sangha

 –        
repositioned themselves as champions of the freedom struggle. Sinhala Buddhism was claimed to be the legitimate political force in independent Sri Lanka,
and Sinhala ethno-religious nationalism was superimposed on the core values of
eravada Buddhist ethics, hegemonising Sinhala rule over the entire island. e
narrative style, the words chosen and the dating of the declaration all show the
determination of the Sangha to return to their heritage aer some  years of
colonial rule.
is declaration dramatised the imagination of the political élite and other
nationalist forces in the country. e same historical religious forces gave them
the impetus to reformulate the contemporary socio-political order. eir political
energy gathered around the radical monks, building a pressure chamber ready to
explode in any form allowed. Rahula included both these texts in his Heritage,
which instantly became a ready reference work for political activism amongst the
Sangha.
e Heritage is rooted in the vision of Dharmapala and Olcott for the Sangha
and its supporters: to be at the centre, not the neglected periphery, of Sinhala society and politics. e enthusiasm it generated among the Sangha across the island
worried members of the political élite, including D.S. Senanayake, the agriculture
minister in the last pro-colonist government. D.S. was considered a champion
of the Buddhist cause, and was expected to be the first Prime Minister of an independent Sri Lanka. Yet he feared the power of this new Sangha nationalism.
He tried to win over key members of Vidyalankara, instead the monks of this
new social force organised themselves under the civil banner of the Lanka Eksath Bhikshu Mandalaya (LEBM), or the United Bhikkhu Organisation of Lanka.
is was the first such organisation in modern Sri Lanka amongst the Sangha, a
para-political social phenomenon that would have a deep impact in the decades
to come (Kent ; Gamage ; De Votta ; Wickramsinghe ; Frydenlund ; Harris ). While an early attempt to form a civil organisation
among the Sangha was made at the  Lanka Bhikshu Sammelanaya (Bhikkhu
Conference of Sri Lanka), it could not mobilise the same forces as the LEBM. It
was against this background that the Heritage became a textbook for Sangha politics in the early years of the independence movement in Sri Lanka. In this booklet,
Rahula provided the legitimacy and the theoretical justification for a new brand of
dēśapālana bhikşuvā (‘political monk’) or bhikşu dēśapālanaya (‘Sangha politics’),
as he named them (Heritage: xiii).

 –        
To date there has not, to my knowledge, been an academic analysis of the
text and the social impact of the Heritage from a comparative political science
perspective. However, the continued popularity of the text, and the authority and
legitimacy drawn from it, are testimony to the acceptance it continues to enjoy.
Rahula predicted the success of his own polemic. He declared in the introduction
to the second edition that through the text a new justification for the political
activism of the Sangha had been realised. It is evident that Rahula foresaw that
the Sangha of Sri Lanka would obtain the political role he argued for.
Structure and narrative of the Heritage
Rahula shapes the narrative of the Heritage strategically, so that it could be divided
into five basic sections as follows:
(i) the historical development of Buddhism and the Sangha in Sri Lanka (chapters –);
(ii) the role of the Sangha in developing a unique Sinhala culture (chapters –
);
(iii) the three European invasions and the role of the Sangha in the fight for
independence (chapters –);
(iv) British / Christian strategies to destroy Buddhism and the Sangha in Sri
Lanka (chapters –); and
(v) the essential need for a new revival (chapter ).
Out of the vast body of canonical texts, he highlights what one might call minor
themes of eravada Buddhism to advance his political agenda. He employs at
the outset a very liberal and selective interpretation of the eravada scriptures,
wilfully ignoring the holistic approach that underlies the teachings of the Tipitaka.
.
By tradition, as most historians, anthropologists, theologians and social scientists
have agreed, the Buddhist teaching conveyed in a large body of literature has predominantly advocated renouncing the world. eravada Buddhism has championed a strict form of social withdrawal in every ideological and conceptual sense.
Rahula himself, during his time at the Sorbonne, would later defend the eravada school against its Mahayana competitors in his popular essays such as What
the Buddha Taught () and Zen and the Taming of the Bull (). However,
in the Heritage, his mission seems to be openly political and narrowly nationalist. He focuses on the close links between the Sangha and society and adduces
Buddhist canonical texts to justify his stand.

 –        
In the opening chapter of the book, Rahula uses the respectable but ambiguous conceptual discourse of eravada and ‘service to others’. Indeed, he opens
his text with the statement, ‘Buddhism is based on services to others’. is is no
accident. His aim is to build a broad-based audience around a widely acceptable
common currency. ere can be no opposition to the call for service to society,
which Rahula supports with the story (from the introduction to the Jātaka book)
of an earlier life of the Buddha as the hermit Sumedha, who gives up the opportunity soon to enter nirvana in order to be of service to others.
‘He [Sumedha] renounced nirvana as suffering in samsara and took
upon himself suffering in samsara for the others as nirvana’ (p. )
He continues by constructing a chronological history of the Sangha and its life,
setting in a modern context the Mahāvamsa
. ideal of the hegemonic relationship
of a Sinhala Sangha to the state. He begins with the birth of the Buddha, thus
locating the origin and authority of the Sangha in the founder of the faith himself.
Aer briefly giving selected highlights in the history of the establishment of the
Buddhist church in India and Sri Lanka, Rahula gives an account of an ancient
Sri Lanka in which the Sangha were the main religious, social and political force.
His narrative is mostly based on the Mahāvamsa,
with clever use of incidents and
.
context that support his political aims.
Seneviratne, an unreserved critic of Rahula, maintains that the latter’s use
of ‘service to others’ was nothing but a pretext: ‘e Vidyalankara idea that the
monk’s vocation is social service was revolutionary, in that it has provided monks
with an unprecedented excuse to seek profit and other secular goals. It has opened
the floodgates and given rise to a new monkhood that many thoughtful members
of the culture view with alarm’. (Seneviratne et al. p. ) Elsewhere he writes,
‘e main reason why these new monks, who claimed their work is community
service, have failed to live up to the standards of service envisaged for them by
Dharmapala [and other key Buddhist figures] is that they have never intended
any such [community service] in the first place. What they meant by community
service was a licence for themselves to have greater involvement with secular society, beginning with politics’ (p. ). Seneviratne goes on to argue that the actual
impact of Rahula’s intervention is contrary to the true nature of the eravada
monkhood and is misleading the morality of the Sangha.
‘e true and clear commitment of the monk is to the other-worldly
goal, and when that is taken away, the monkhood is freed of its basis

 –        
and monks can engage in any activity. ... But when the floodgates
are opened, as when knowledge is elevated over practice, there is no
inner way to control the activities of monks, whereas such control is
the essence of the renouncer’s commitment’ (p. ).
Seneviratne continues,
‘In the Urumaya and in the History [of Buddhism in Ceylon] it suits
Rahula to be an advocate of a Buddhism that glorifies social intercourse with lay society ... the receipt of salaries and other forms
of material remuneration; ethnic exclusivism and Sinhala Buddhist
hegemony; militancy in politics; and violence, war and the spilling
of blood in the name of “preserving the religion”.’ (p. ).
Seneviratne was prescient: many of his theses have been corroborated by the passage of time and the political developments of the Sangha. Yet, taking the Heritage
objectively, there is no doubt that Rahula very cleverly built on what was already
there and influenced the Sinhala Sangha social psyche and the society at large. It
may not be close to the Pali canonical writings and their intended message, but
one cannot deny the historical fact that Sinhala Buddhism has, over the course
of  years, evolved a different set of norms and values and transformed into a
Protestant Sinhala Buddhism. As summarised by Tilakaratne:
‘roughout the history of Buddhism, there seem to have been two
categories of monks, or rather, monks with two different slants. e
best example of this division is the two great elders of the time of the
Buddha, namely, Maha Kassapa and Ananda. e former was the
epitome of relentless ascetic practice and austerity characterised by
living in the forest, dislike for women, etc., clearly even more austere than the Buddha himself. Ananda was the exact opposite: citydwelling, active, busy, a perfect private secretary, co-ordinator and
champion of the liberation of women, visiting and meeting people.
e texts say that Ananda could not attain arahanthood, the perfection of the path, until the Buddha attained parinibbana. But the irony
is that the person who lived closest to the Buddha and who kept the
entire teaching in his memory was unable to realise the main goal
of his monastic life. Had Ananda not spent his time for things like
preservation of the teaching, he would have attained arahanthood

 –        
much earlier, but posterity would have been deprived of the opportunity of following the teaching of the Buddha aer he was gone. As
Seneviratne holds, the dhamma is to be practised and not to be protected. But it does not seem that we can easily escape the hard reality
exemplified in the story of Ananda. It is true that not all were like
Ananda or even followed him. But the modes of behaviour exemplified in the lives of the two elders has persisted throughout the history
of Buddhism. Categories such as gantha-dhura and vipassana-dhura,
dhamma-kathita and pansukulika, and gama-vasi and aranna-vasi
that became important in the subsequent history of Buddhism may
be traced back to the two elders.’ (Tilakaratne , Bath Papers)
e delicate balance between this world and the other may have tilted towards historical and socio-political factors and away from doctrinal practices in the case of
Sri Lanka. But the paradoxical tensions between them are real, and create opportunities which Rahula was able to exploit at a critical time.
Rahula borrowed from the argument developed by Anagarika Dharmapala.
Yet the ‘service to others’ Rahula had in mind is far from the kind of service the
average village Buddhists were familiar with. Rahula’s project was to exploit the
existing tradition of community service for a mass mobilisation to recapture the
politically influential positions that the Sangha had historically enjoyed. is was
a vision, based on the Mahāvamsa,
targeting the future independent state of Sri
.
Lanka and its governing structure. e Heritage appeared under conditions that
were ripe for channelling existing social forces into a new political destiny; and as
a monk with enough secular education and exposure to regional, especially Indian, political development, Rahula aimed his text at the waiting new generation
of younger monks who had benefitted from a liberal education under the colonial
administration. e new community of monks who were able to travel and meet
more freely than their teachers, and read and understand secular sciences, were
energised by Rahula’s arguments and the intellectual debate he constructed. To
many younger monks who desired a liberated monastic order, he had provided
a blueprint for action. ey had been waiting for an acceptable mandate from
a respectable voice. Rahula’s writing, and the argument of the Heritage, inspired
them to take Sinhala Buddhism and its Sangha in a new direction that would alter
both its own destiny and the political fate of the island.
With the success and the acceptance of the Heritage, Rahula took to task the
relaxed, rural Sangha leadership. With self-appointed authority, he challenged

 –        
the ritualistic lifestyle of the average senior monk in Sri Lanka. He even sarcastically stigmatised the fundamental rituals of the Sangha, which were mainly limited to preaching, officiating at Buddhist funerals and conducting the calendrical
festivals of the temples. Rahula’s calculated attack on the rural Sangha attracted
urban monks who were searching for new ways to criticise the detachment of the
monkhood from the life of the average Buddhist. Rahula provided a moral justification for the many urban monks who were keener to associate themselves with
the political powers of the cities than to serve in the difficult and challenging rural
temples. It was also a perfect springboard for those monks who by now were fascinated by the socialist political ideologies in the political landscape. It was this
section of the Sangha that the pioneering socialist movements of Sri Lanka targeted and used as an agent of social mobility. As sociologist Kumari Jayawardena
noted, ‘ese strikes were led by petty-bourgeoisie which included Buddhist revivalists, the unorthodox fringe of the Ceylonese bourgeoisie and eosophists,
social reformers, temperance workers, and the more politically conscious nationalists who first gave the urban workers an element of trade union and class consciousness’ (:).
ere were a number of factors that helped the Heritage to galvanise political
sections of the Sangha. Rahula’s historical contribution was to plant an ideological seed that was later to grow into one of the most significant political forces
in Sri Lanka. e role of the contemporary Sangha in justifying the war against
the Tamil Tigers is well recorded. Rahula’s social context was characterised by a
number of powerful factors:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
the inescapable fact of historical political leadership by a Sinhala Sangha
the diminished influence of the Sangha during the centuries of foreign rule
a growing frustration with the traditional Sangha leadership
a period of political uncertainty and transition
personal values and beliefs
Rahula stood true to his ideology of the societal role of the monkhood until his
death. In the mid-s, towards the end of his life, he again came to the political forefront. In –, he gave leadership to oppose the peace process and
the proposed constitutional changes to accommodate the demands of the Tamil
ethnic minority. e Chandrika government proposed a constitutional amendment which aimed to address the root causes of Tamil political grievances; it was
well received by most moderate, intellectual and academic sections of civil society.
is promised a democratic solution to the political crisis which would end the

 –        
violent war that was raging. Yet this attempt of the Chandrika government failed
due to the formidable forces of the Sangha who opposed the process, largely on
grounds of Sinhala Buddhist hegemony. Of course, they had the brutalities of the
Tamil Tigers’ terrorism as a valid excuse for their opposition.
It is therefore important to ask why Sinhala society is influenced more by the
political Sangha than by the eremitic and ascetic monks who propagate a canonical eravada Buddhism. How is it possible for individual, politically motivated
monks to make their involvement in daily secular life acceptable to ordinary people and intervene in public life? It is a historical fact that socio-politics, rather than
the canonical texts, has become the key point of reference for Sinhala monks. In
the social debate, the Sangha have initiated and cultivated a tradition in which
they are more bhūmiputras, ‘sons of the soil’ than Buddhaputras or ‘sons of the
Buddha’ (Amunugama a, b, ). For these monks, the Buddha himself is the exemplar of dialectical socio-politics. He dealt with kings and advised
them on war and peace. He encouraged the Sangha to remain closer to the royal
courts. And finally, in the Cakkavatti Sīhanāda Sutta, he predicted a just king in
the shadow of the future Buddha.
Rahula, by his well-timed intervention in the form of the Heritage, seems to
have achieved two distinct but convergent aims. (i) He legitimised the secularisation of the modern Sangha and its interpretation of Buddhism as exclusively
Sinhala, and (ii) de-legitimised the ‘other’, opposing voices who disagreed with
his thesis. At a time when the political future of the island was more uncertain
than ever, Rahula’s arguments were a focal point for Sinhala nationalism, the ancient force that had once lost its direction but was now re-conceptualised by the
articulate and culturally compatible scholarship of the Sangha. e ethnic politics of later years were the natural extension of this inclusive and exclusive process. Here, as Derrida has pointed out, the ‘other’ becomes the historical rogue
or rogue against whom society needs to be reconfigured and secured (:).
In Sri Lanka, in the Sinhala Buddhist narrative, there has been an ‘other’ who is
oen a ‘rogue’ in every political and social sense. is is how society, the state and
even the future are defined: it is not an exceptional condition but rather the norm.
Once the ‘otherness’ is constructed and established, it justifies the punitive political order which is oen the centralised mechanism of exclusion and inclusion. At
the dawn of Independence in the late s, when Rahula presented his Heritage
thesis, it was the colonial administration and everything associated with it that
was perceived and presented as the rogue. As we have seen, it did not take long

 –        
for the ethno-religious nationalism of Sinhala Buddhism to replace them with the
non-Buddhists who shared the island as the new rogues in independent Sri Lanka.
e identification of ‘rogues’ within a system naturally demands action: action by every citizen to cleanse these rogues from the societal order. e necessity of action legitimises a continued exclusion and a punitive mechanism for any
alternatives or deviations. e excluded, in return, will react in a manner that
further justifies the political labels of ‘other’ and ‘rogue’. e Tamil Tigers during
their three-decade use of political terrorism did just that. e LTTE with their
textbook terror campaign reinforced the dreadful imaginings of the majority Sinhala mind, reproducing a whole social psychology that justified a war within a
Sinhala Buddhist discourse. Ven. Athuraliye Rathana, the current leader of the
Jātika Hela Urumaya, the all-monk political party in Sri Lanka’s present parliament, echoed the essence of this discourse:
‘ere are two central concepts of Buddhism: compassion and wisdom. If compassion was a necessary and sufficient condition, then
the Buddha would not have elaborated on wisdom or prajñā. Hitler
could not have been overcome by maitriya alone. Today there is a
discourse about peace in Sri Lanka. It is an extremely artificial exercise and one that is clearly being orchestrated under the threat of
terrorist attack. Our responsibility is to ensure that the jātika sammuti [national consensus] is given voice and the lie of the conflict
sammuti is exposed.’ (Ven Rathana at Bath conference, .)
is process is the result of a deep insecurity which generates a violent anxiety.
Modern observers of Sri Lanka’s political process have testified that it has repeatedly reproduced this social force, oen led by a culturally élitist Sangha. e Ven.
Prof. Walpola Rahula was only one of those who, at a critical point in the modern
history of Sri Lanka, permanently reshaped the polity of the island.
Rahula single-handedly answered those critics and scholars who lamented the
development of a brand of Buddhism that contradicted, or at least diverged from,
the traditional teachings of the eravada canon and tradition (Gombrich ;
Obeyesekere ; Ling :-; Smith ). e trajectory conceptualised
by Rahula and developed by his later followers had a decisive impact on the polity
of Sri Lanka. Fractured along caste, regional and party lines, the Sangha community has oen evolved as a force at the disposal of the opportunity politics of the
UNP, SLFP and JVP, the three main Sinhala parties.

 –        
As Abeysekara, who looks at the relationship between the ‘Sinhala nation’ and
‘Sinhala Buddhism’, observes, the discourse shis attention away from the relationship between Buddhism and nationalism as an enduring phenomenon, and
towards the specific and contingent ways in which such notions as ‘Buddhist’ and
‘nation’ are defined. By examining particular native debates over what can and
cannot count as ‘Buddhist’, Abeysekara recasts Buddhist nationalism ‘as a shiing configuration of discourse wherein competing interests struggle for rhetorical
and political advantage’ (Abeysekara :– and Berkwitz ).
Between  and , if the politically mobilised Sinhala Sangha agreed
and acted on any single issue, it was the determined and violent opposition to the
proposal to share political power with the non-Sinhala minorities, which they interpreted as the death of the two fundamental features defining Sri Lanka: Sinhala
ethnicity and the Buddhism of the Sinhalese.
e Venerable Walpola Rahula by his ideology, activities and, especially, writing continued the historicised role of the Sinhala Sangha. He recontextualised
and intellectualised rata,
. jātiya and āgama, the unitary ownership of the island,
the supremacy of the Sinhala race, and the institutionalising of Sinhala Buddhism,
in that order of priority.
Bibliography
Abeysekera, Ananda, “e Saffron Army, Violence, Terror(ism): Buddhism, Identity,
and Difference in Sri Lanka,” Numen, Volume , Number , , pp. –
Abeysekera, Ananda, Colors of the Robe: Religion, Identity, and Difference. Columbia,
University of South Carolina Press, 
Bartholomeusz, Tessa J., In Defence of Dharma Just-war ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka,
RoutledgeCurzon, London, 
Bartholomeusz, Tessa, Chandra R. de Silva, e Role of the Sangha in the Reconciliation Process, Marga Monograph Series on Ethnic Reconciliation, No. ,
Colombo: Marga Institute, 
Bellin, Eva, “Faith in Politics new trends in the study of Religion and Politics,” World
Politics, Volume , January , pp. –
Berkwitz, Steven C., Review of “eravada Buddhism and the British Encounter: Religious, Missionary and Colonial Experience in Nineteenth-century Sri Lanka”
by Elizabeth J. Harris, Religion , Volume: , Issue: , pp. –
Brekke, Torkel, “e Religious Motivation of the Early Buddhists,” Journal of the
American Academy of Religion, Issue , Volume (), pp. – Cuth
 –        
berston, Ian M., “Prisons and the Education of Terrorists,” World Policy Journal,
Fall , Vol.  Issue , pp. –
Gombrich, Richard & Gananath Obeyesekere, Buddhism Transformed: Religious
Change in Sri Lanka, Motilal Banarsidass; New edition, 
Gombrich, Richard, eravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to
Modern Colombo, (Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices), Routledge; New edition, London, 
Haynes, Jeff, (ed.) Democracy in the ird World, Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science) Routledge, London, 
Haynes, Jeff, “Transnational religious actors and international politics,” ird World
Quarterly, Vol , No , pp. –, 
Jayawardena, Kumari, Nobodies to Somebodies: e Rise of the Colonial Bourgeoisie in
Sri Lanka, LeWord Books, New Delhi, 
Juergensmeyer, Mark,  Presidential Address: “Beyond Words and War: e
Global Future of Religion,” Journal of American Academy of Religion (a) volume , issue (), pp. –
Juergensmeyer, Mark, Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State, From
Christian Militias to al Qaeda, University of California Press, 
Juergensmeyer, Mark, Religion in Global Civil Society, Open University Press, USA,

Juergensmeyer, Mark, “e Global Rise of Religious Nationalism,” Australian Journal
of International Affairs, b, Volume , Issue , pp. –
Malalgoda, Kitsiri, Buddhism in Sinhalese Society -: A Study of Religious Revival and Change, Berkeley: University of California Press, 
Manor, James, e expedient utopian: Bandaranaike and Ceylon, Cambridge University Press Cambridge England and New York, 
Manor James, “e failure of political integration in Sri Lanka,” e Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, Volume , Issue , 
Moore, Mick, “e Ideological History of the Sri Lankan ‘Peasantry’,” Modern Asian
Studies, Vol. , No.  (), pp. –
Obeyesekere, Gananath, “Buddhism, Ethnicity and Identity: A Problem of Buddhist
History,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, , Volume , pp. –
Obeyesekere, Gananath, “Buddhism, Nationhood, and Cultural Identity: A question
of fundamentals.” In Fundamentalism Comprehended, edited by M. E. Marty and
R. S. Appleby, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, , pp. –
Rahula, Ven Walpola, e Heritage of the bhikkhu: A short history of the bhikkhu in
educational, cultural, social, and political life, Grove Press, distributed by Random
House, New York, 

 –        
Rahula, Ven Walpola, A History of Buddhism in Ceylon, Buddhist Cultural Centre,
Colombo, 
Rahula, Ven Walpola, Bhiksuvāge
Urumaya, Colombo , nd edition, Godage
.
Brothers, Colombo, 
Rathana Athureliye Venerable, “A Buddhist analysis of e Ethnic Conflict,” Journal
of Buddhist Ethics , Volume , pp. –
Rodriguez, Dylan, Forced Passages: Imprisoned Radical Intellectuals and the U.S. Prison
Regime, University of Minnesota Press, 
Seneviratne, H. L. e Work of Kings: the New Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Chicago University Press; st, edition, 
Smith, Bardwell, “e Ideal Social Order as Portrayed in the Chronicles of Ceylon.”
In e Two Wheels of Dhamma: Essays on the eravada Tradition in India and
Ceylon, edited by Gananath Obeyesekere, Frank Reynolds and Bardwell L. Smith,
Chambersburg American Academy of Religion, , pp. –
Smith, Bardwell L., Religion and Legitimation of Power in Sri Lanka, Anima Books,
Chambersburg, PA USA, 
Tilakaratne, Asanga, “e Role of the Sangha in the Conflict in Sri Lanka,” Journal of
Buddhist Ethics, , Volume , pp. –

A Buddhist ballad from Bangladesh: the Sambhūmitta Pālā. An
apocryphal jātaka from Southeast Asia to an Indian tune
Paola G. Tinti
[email protected]
e Sambhūmitta Pālā Kīrtan is a Bangladeshi devotional song based on
an apocryphal life story of the Buddha originating in ailand. Its style is
that of the devotional songs more commonly associated with Vais. navism.
.
is format is so popular in Bengal that it has become part of all religious
traditions. e Buddhist tradition of Bangladesh is connected to those of
Southeast Asia and the style of this song reflects a regional taste rather than
an historical link to Indian Buddhism.
roughout history a variety of cultural performances have been employed in
the Indian subcontinent to transmit religious knowledge. One such form of performance, consisting of devotional singing, is known as kīrtan. e origins of this
kind of song are thought to be early medieval. It has probably been influenced by
diverse traditions. While conducting fieldwork research into Bangladeshi Buddhism in the early s, I stumbled across a notebook kept in a monastery in
the Chittagong region, which proclaimed itself as a Buddhist pāla kīrtan. is attracted my attention, because kīrtan are mainly associated with Vais. navism
and
.
I had never heard of a Buddhist variety. Moreover, I was working on a thesis
which, in examining the history of Buddhism in East Bengal, was trying to prove
that it belonged to the Southeast Asian tradition. e decidedly Hindu and Indian
heritage of the kīrtan was completely at odds with my expectations.

Slawek , .
Chakrabarty , .

Soon to be published.

.  (): –. ©  Paola G. Tinti
 –     
e term kīrtan derives from the Sanskrit kīrt, meaning to call out, to proclaim, and indeed one form of kīrtan, the nāma kīrtan, consists of the repeated
invocation of a deity’s name. Another form of kīrtan, the līlā kīrtan, involves the
telling, in song, of an episode in the life of a deity. e pālā kīrtan that I had found
is a form of līlā kīrtan, and its full title is Sambhūmitta Pālā.
e Sambhūmitta Pālā owes its title to the name of the hero of the story, King
Sambhūmitta, and to the particular genre of this work: pālā in Bengali means
ballad. Before proceeding with the presentation of the Bengali text in romanised
version and its English translation, I shall here discuss the subject matter as well
as some stylistic details of the Sambhūmitta Pālā.
e Sambhūmitta Pālā narrates the story of King Sambhūmitta, the compassionate and selfless king of the town of Campaka. Sambhūmitta, made aware
of the fact that his brother, Asambhūmitta, was plotting to overthrow him, renounces his kingdom in favour of Asambhūmitta and decides to retire into the
forest. His wife, Kesinī, and their two baby children, Jayasen and Jayadatta, accompany him. When in the forest, aer a series of incidents, the four get separated. Kesinī is kidnapped by a merchant, while the children, thought to be abandoned, are adopted by a clan of fishermen. Sambhūmitta, grieving over the loss
of his family, ends up in the city of Taksaśila.
e king of that city has just died
.
leaving no heirs and Sambhūmitta is chosen to become the new king of Taksaśila.
.
A series of fortunate incidents reunite Sambhūmitta with his lost wife and children. At the end of the narrative, it is explained that Sambhūmitta and his family
had to undergo the pain of their separation due to bad karma.
e theme of the Sambhūmitta Pālā is based on the Sambhumittajātaka. is
is one of the fiy birth-stories of the Buddha collectively known as Paññāsais collection of nonJātaka, or with the Burmese name of Zimmè Pan. nāsa.
.
canonical texts is believed to have been compiled around the fieenth century,
possibly in northern ailand. e name Zimmè Pan. nāsa
in fact means “Chieng
.
Mai Fiy” in Burmese, and it is thought that the stories may have originated in
that city of Northern ailand. ree recensions of these birth-stories, all from
Southeast Asia, have survived to this day.
e fact that this particular birth-story of the Buddha should be very popular among Bangladeshi Buddhists, so much so that a new version has been writ

Feer ,  ff.
See ‘Preliminary Remarks’ in Jaini  vol. .

 –     
ten of it, titled Sambhumitta [sic], with a different ending and added episodes,
reinforces the thesis of my work on this Buddhist tradition that this should be
considered part of the Southeast Asian one. is non-canonical Southeast Asian
jātaka seems in fact to be more popular in Bangladesh than a canonical jātaka
with a very similar theme: the Vessantara Jātaka, “the most famous story in the
Buddhist world”.
e one element linking the Sambhūmitta Pālā to Indian culture, though not
Indian Buddhist culture, is its style. I have said above that the Sambhūmitta Pālā
is a specific type of lilā kīrtan, a song in praise of a god, not just invoking his name
and qualities but telling his deeds. A Hindu tradition of temple singing was well
established before the Muslim invasion of the subcontinent; however, the kīrtan
is closely related to the rise of bhakti: theistic devotion. e kīrtan is in fact also a
love song that the follower of a god sings to express the pain experienced at being
separated from the object of his devotion.
In Bengal, the kīrtan is linked with the rise in the sixteenth century of the
Vais. nava
movement initiated by Caitanya (-), the leader of the Vais. nava
.
.
reformation, whose family was originally from the Sylhet area, in what is now
Bangladesh. Aer Caitanya became a bhakta, a man devoted in heart and life
to the service of Kr. s. na,
. he engaged whole-heartedly in musical worship, i.e. the
kīrtan. Caitanya also introduced the typical Vais. nava
way of begging for alms,
.
inviting people to sing the name of Hari. Caitanya’s kīrtan was chorus-singing to
the accompaniment of drums and cymbals. Beginning in the evening, the kīrtan
would increase in volume and emotional intensity as the hours passed: bodily
movements and rhythmic clapping would become more and more intense, sometimes resulting in the excesses of hysteria. e Caitanya movement strongly influenced the Bengalis’ taste for devotional songs and poetry and their large production over centuries. e Bengali kīrtan has evolved over time, with new forms
coming to life and being formalised, and it is very much still part of Bengali
culture, not just the Bengali Vais. nava
tradition.
.
One might think that Buddhism, based on the principle of mindfulness and
the doctrine of the Middle Way, could not possibly employ a highly emotional

Kabiratna Priyadarśī Mahāsthavir  Bengali year.
Cone and Gombrich , xv.

Slawek , .

For the story of the kīrtan in Bengal see Sānyāl  and Chakrabarty .

Chakrabarty , .

Chakrabarty , -.


 –     
form of worship such as the kīrtan. However, the kīrtan, as a form of devotional
singing, has gained so much popularity in Bengal that it has become part of all
religious traditions, including Islam. While retaining its character as a song of
love and devotion, and other characteristics, such as the invocation of the name
of the divinity to whom the song is dedicated, in Buddhism the kīrtan has lost its
excesses.
Very little is known of the history of the Buddhist pālā kīrtan. According to
those Buddhist music teachers I had the opportunity to interview in Chittagong
in , the Bauddha pālā kīrtan is a very recent invention. According to the
same sources, the first Bauddha pālā kīrtan were composed in the nineteenth
century, as a consequence of the flourishing of Buddhism following the revival
of . Allegedly a relatively large collection of Buddhist pālā kīrtan once existed in Chittagong, but were lost during the independence war of . e text
here presented was taken from the hand-written notebook of a singer in Raṅgunia
(Chittagong District). In the opening page of the text  is given as the date of
its compilation. ere seems to be no reason why one should doubt that the Buddhist pālā kīrtan is such a recent phenomenon.
One could wonder whether the Bangladeshi Buddhists’ adoption of the kīrtan
as a form of literary expression may indicate a strong link between this tradition
and the Buddhist culture of the Indian subcontinent, which would be contrary to
my belief that the Buddhism of this region is part of the Southeast Asian tradition.
Despite the Indian style of this ballad, which only reflects a regional taste common to all religious groups, the subject matter of the song, which is taken from a
Southeast Asian apocryphal birth-story of the Buddha, confirms the link between
the Buddhism of Bangladesh and that of Southeast Asia.
It will be apparent from the following text that the pālā contains an alternation
of narrative (kathā) and song (jhumur, sure and dīrgha jhumur). e sung part
is divided between chorus and solo singing. In ancient times, Indian Buddhist
culture produced a large number of theatrical works. is tradition has been kept
alive in all Buddhist cultures, despite the fact that Buddhist doctrine does not
support this kind of entertainment. e representation of jātakas is particularly
common. e fact that the Buddhists of Bangladesh alone have chosen the kīrtan
as a form of expression, and the fact that other religious groups of this region have

anks to the work of Kazi Nazrul Islam (-), one of the most celebrated Bengali and
Bangladeshi poets and musicians of all times.

Ahmed .

 –     
done the same, seems to indicate a Bengali regional taste for this form, rather
than a continuity with any ancient Buddhist Indian tradition. erefore, we can
classify the Bauddha pālā kīrtan as a recent addition to the rich world of Buddhist
performing arts in general, and to Buddhist theatre in particular.
e following text is divided into three parts. e first part, comprising sections ‘a’ to ‘e’, include, besides the title page, a standard invocation to the Buddha
and an invitation to the audience to join in the worship of the Buddha. e second part, sections  to , is the story of king Sambhūmitta. ese two parts
form a typical pālā kīrtan. e third part, which can be divided into two further
parts, from section I to VII and section VIII, constitutes a later addition to the
main document. e first part is an exhortation to Buddhist unity in Bangladesh.
is text, by two different people, of whom we know nothing but their names:
Baskara(?) and Binay, is not a standard part of a pālā kīrtan. It is possible to date
this part to aer the sixth Buddhist Council of , which is mentioned on page
IV. e last page of the text is on the other hand an alternative wording to the end
of Sambhūmitta’s story. e owner of the notebook from which I have taken the
pālā kīrtan, or one of his predecessors, may have noted this version aer hearing
it from another singer.
e text of the Sambhūmitta Pālā is here presented in its original form. No
emendation has been made to the text, but so far as I could I have suggested correct forms in the footnotes. e work of transliterating the text of this kīrtan from
the bad-quality photocopies that I had made in Bangladesh would not have been
possible without the patient and knowledgable help of Dr Sanjukta Gupta. I am
also grateful to Professor Joseph O’Connell for pointing out useful sources on the
history and definition of kīrtan. All mistakes are exclusively mine.
A note on pronunciation and method of transliterating Bengali
e Bengali script, like most South Asian scripts ultimately derives from the
Brāhmī script and is relatively closely related to the Devanāgarī script used by
Hindi (and nowadays for printing Sanskrit). However, in the course of time the
pronunciation of certain letters in Bengali has become very different from the
equivalent Sanskrit.
e inherent vowel ‘a’ is in Bengali pronounced almost like short ‘o’ (as in
English ‘got’). e three sibilants ś, s. and s are generally all pronounced ‘sh’ in
West Bengal, while in some areas of Bangladesh they are all pronounced like ‘s’.

 –     
‘Y’ is pronounced as ‘y’ or as ‘j’ depending on the position within the word. Also,
while in writing Sanskrit a stop mark indicates when a consonant is not followed
by the inherent vowel; this is not the case in Bengali, leaving the reader with no
clue.
I have adopted in my transliteration, with few exceptions, the so-called Sanskrit method, which is the one conventionally adopted to transcribe Sanskrit into
roman script. To facilitate pronunciation I have however transcribed the letter
‘y’ as either ‘y’ or ‘j’ depending on its pronunciation. Also, I have transcribed
the nasalisation symbol known as candrabindu with the symbol ~, which I have
placed, for technical reasons, in front of the vowel to be nasalised, not on top of
it. ‘∂’ is a retroflex consonant which in some parts of Bengal is pronounced as a
fricative, a kind of ‘r’, and elsewhere as a stop, a kind of ‘d’.
‘()’ aer a word indicates that the word is to be repeated. e word ‘(ekhan)’,
which is pronounced in recitation, means that the preceding stanza is to be repeated.
Abbreviations
e following abbreviations have been used in the transliteration and translation
of the Sambhūmitta Pālā. e abbreviated words constitute the notation for the
performance of the ballad.
K Kathā. Narrative which is not sung.
S. Sure. Literally “in a melodious way”. General term referring to the sung part
of the ballad.
Jh. Jhumur. Narrative singing. Name of a particular metre already in use in Middle Bengali.
D.Jh. Dīrgha Jhumur. Modified, longer, form of the jhumur metre.
Bibliography
Ahmed, S.J. . “Buddhist eatre in Ancient Bengal.” Journal of the Asiatic Society
of Bangladesh. Vol. , No. . Dhaka: e Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
Chakrabarty, R. . “Vais. nava
Kīrtan in Bengal.” Journal of Vais. nava
Studies. Vol.
.
.
, No. , -. FOLK Books: New York.
Cone, M. and Gombrich R.F. . e Perfect Generosity of Prince Vessantara. A
Buddhist Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 –     
Feer, L. . “Les Jātakas.” Journal Asiatique e Sér., v. Centre National de la recherche
scientifique. Société Asiatique: Paris
Jaini, P.S. ed. . Paññāsa-Jātaka or Zimme Pan. nāsa
(in the Burmese Recension).
.
 Vols. London: e Pali Text Society.
Kabiratna Priyadarśī Mahāsthavir.  (Bengali year). Sambhumitta. Chittagong.
Sānyāl, H. . Bānglā Kīrtaner Itihās. Calcutta: Centre for Studies in Social Sciences.
Slawek, S. . “e definition of kīrtan: an historical and geographical perspective.”
Journal of Vais. nava
Studies. Vol. , No. , -. FOLK Books: New York.
.

 –     
Sambhūmitta Pālā: the Bengali text
[a]
Sambhūmitta Pālā
(Bauddha Jātaka abalambane pālā kīrttan)
lekhak
Madan Mohan Cākmā BA BL
o
Rāsmohan Baruyā
MA
.
gāyak
Śrījut Bābu Śaśāṅka Bikāś Caudhurī
Grām: Thegarpuni
.
P.O. Bhātīkhāin
.
Cat. tagrām
.
 aktaubar

.
[b]
Buddha bala man rasanāy - śamaner bhay rabe nā
śamaner bhay rabe nāre - śamaner bhay rabe nā
Buddha Dharmma Samgher
nām - balare man abirām
.
Buddha Dharmma Samgha
bine bhabe mukti pābe nā
.
Aṅgulīmālā byādh chila - Buddher nāme tare gela
antimer cirasāthī - triratnake bhūla nā

bhabasindhu taribāre - dāka
Buddha - karna
.
. dhāre

Buddha karna
. dhār bine - bhabe mukti pābe nā
pākā gha∂ pākā bā∂ī - tākā
payasār jamidārī
.
prān. gele piñjar che∂e sange kichu jābe nā
ei dhan jan — niśār svapana
sakali māyār khelā
bhaja triratana — ore abodh man
bhūlo nāre aman bholā

Karnadhāre
(one word).
.
Karnadhār.
(one word).
.

Bhula.


 –     
(Jh.)
(Jh.)
(aman) bhūlo nāre
madhu mākhā - Buddher nām ……………………
madhu mākhā - Dharmmer nām …………………
madhu mākhā - Samgher
nām ……………………
.
bhūla nā - bhūla nā
eman din ār pābe nā…………………………
jata bala tata bhāla……………………………
bala bala ābār bala ……………………….
madhu mākhā Buddher nām …………….
[c]
jei mukhe kheyecha bhāi dudh ār cini
sei mukhe tule dibe jalanta āguni
kibā ga∂ kibā bā∂ī kibā sādher bau
jābār kāle pather sāthī sange nāire keu
strī putra bon bhāginā keha kāro nay
du diner miche māyā pather paricay
kumārer śarā pātil bhāmle
. nā lay jorā
sonār dehakhānī kemane jābe po∂ā
pākāghar pākāba∂ī kāre diye jābe
lohār sinduker cābi kār hāte rākhibe
(Jh.)
keha nay āpnār
strī putra bon bhāginā ………………
jābār kāle pather sāthī ………………
dudiner miche māyā ………………
pākāgha∂ pākāba∂ī …………………
bhāi bala bandhu bala ………………
ekā ese ekā jābe ……………………
[d]
kothāyre kāṅgaler Buddha — ekbār dekhā dāo āmāre
sādhaner dhan cintāmani
. — tāre nā herile prān. bidare
kisukhe rekecha Śrībuddha — dibā niśi biśayānale jvale jāy aṅga

Bhula.

 –     
tomār premabārī bariśane — śuśital kara āmāre
bhabanadīr kulkinārā nāi — akul sāgare mājhe bhāsiye be∂āi
eman bāndhab nāire — dākiye jijñāsā kare
tumi satī sundar karunārī
. sāmya - he - mukta debatā mahān
tumi duhkha
bara
n
kariyā
sukherī sandhān lāgiyā
.
.
janme () pārāmītā pūrna
. karile
labhile jñāna e mukta mahān
duhkher
payadhī kariyā manthan amrterī
sandhān labhechile jakhan
.
.
jīber lāgiyā diyāchile bikāiyā
biśve-karile prajñā dān - he mukta debatā mahān,
trijater prānī
. k~ādila jakhan debatāgane (taba) kare nibedan
karunerī
. krandan
kariye śraban
biśve karile punah. abhijān (he) mukta mahān
gurabe namah.
[e]
bandanā
ohe Buddha karunāsindu
dīnabandhu jagatpati
.
Śudhadana -suta Buddha Gopākānta namastu te
janaka-Rāhula Buddha agatira gati
sās. tānge
pranati
ksiti
.
. kari lutāye
.
.
prathamete bandi āmi Śrībuddher caran.
dvitīyate bandi Dharmma āmi narādham
trtīyate
bandi āmi sujana samhati
.
.
triratna bandanā kari lutāye
ksiti
.
.
Śrībuddher carane
āmi
kari
nibedan
.
dayā kari mama kan. the
. kara āgaman

Śuśītal.
Sāgarer.

Pāramitā.

Payodhī.

Trijagater.

Śuddhodana.


 –     
prathame jata bayobrddha
kariyā bandana
.
binaya bacane balī niyo sambhāsa
. n.
pitār carane
āmi
pra
nati
jānāi
.
.
j~āhār oraśe janmi Buddha gun. gāi
mātār carane
. āmi kariye pranām
.
j~āhār jathare
janmi
gāi
gu
na
.
. gān
ār o jata guru āche kariyā bandana
(Jh.)
Sambhūmitta pālā āmi kariba kīrttan
(S.)
Sambhūmitta pālā kathā śuna sarbbajane
pāp punyer
bicār sabe kara mane mane
.
ei pālā śunle habe jñāner sañcār
[] (K.) Prakrtir
chila.
. līlāniketane Campaka nagarī prācīnkāle ati samrddhaśālī
.
Prabal boidurjyamani
muktār
samalaṅk
rta
su-ucca
gambuja
biśi
s
ta
saudha
rāji
.
.
..
- ei nagarer śobhā barddhan karta: prakrta
. dhanasampade Campaka nirantar
paripūrna
chila.
.

(S.)
dhanadhānye puspe
. bharā Campaka nagare
ullāsita prajābrnda
dibā bibhābare
.
ahimsā
. paramadharmma rakse
. sarbbajan
(Jh.) kāhār o anis. tha
. cintā kare nā kakhana
Campaka nagare
sukhe rājya kare

Sambhumitta nāme rājā
putrasamajñāne parama jatane
raksā
. kare tār prajā
(Jh.)
(D. Jh.)
sabe sukhe chilare
ānanda hillole bhāsi ………….…………
sadā chila Campakabāsī ……..………….
(K.) Campakarāj Sambhumitter Keśinī nāme ek rānī
. ebam
. sei marumaya samsāre
.
śāntir nirjhar svarūpa.

Prabāl.
Reference to a song by D. L. Ray.

Bibhābari.

Sambhūmitta.

Sambhūmitter.


 –     
(S.)
tāhār chila dui putra
Jayasen Jayadatta ………………………
Campaka nagar mājhe……………………
(D. Jh.) Jayasen Jayadatta - tāhār chila dui putra
 sahodar chilen. Ekdin Asam[] (K.) Asambhūmitta name tāhār ekjan kanista
.
bhū puspodyāne
base bhāblen: “Jadi dādā mare jāy kimbā
abasthāy
.
. t~āhār brddha
.
t~āhār putrarāi rājsimhāsane
base
sukh
saubhāgyer
adhikārī
habe.
Āmi
o rā.
jakule janma niyechi, kintu āmār ei po∂ā jībane rājatvasukh je ki tāhā kakhano
ghatibe
ke∂e nite
. na. Tāi dādā hate chalebale kauśale je kona rakame rājsimhāsan
.
habe. Tā nā hale āmār saubhāgya śaśī ciradiner janya nairāśyer andhakāre ācchanna thākbe.”
(S.)
jadi dādā binā juddhe rājya nāhi-chā∂e
abaśya laiba rājya astrāghāte mere
hatyā āmi kariba go t~āhār śiśugane
.
(Jh.)
tāder hate bamśa
. jena nā rahe bhūbane
raktagaṅgā prabāhiba tāder śonite
sātārī maner tr. s. nā
tāte
. mitaiba
.
rañjita kariba
śiśurakte Campakanagar …………
raktagaṅgā prabāhiba …………….
(K.) Asambhū ei pratijñā/pan.  kari gopane dhana diye pātra mitrake bhulāiyā
rākhila jāte tāhārā Sambhūmittake śatru bale mane kare.
(S.) (Jh.)
paksabhūta
karila
.
dhanaratna diye bahu …………………
pātramitra bhulāiyā ………………....…
[] (K.) Mahārāj Sambhūmitta ekdin ratnāsane upabis. ta
. āchen, eman samay śaśabyaste janaika amātya ese ballen: “Rājan, jatane pālita sarpa jeman bipul phanā
bistār kare āpan prabhuke-damśan
karte udyata hay, serūp āpni jāhāke parama
.
sohāge buke dhare pālān karechen - sei ciraposita
. Asambhū āj Campaka rājya
āpnār hāt theke ke∂e nebār mānase - āpnāke bisanetre
dekhchen.
.

Kanis. tha.
.
Āmio.

ese two words, which have the same meaning, are written one on top of the other.


 –     
(S.)

roge kas. ta
. pete jadi Asambhū kakhana
tār kas. te
s. ta
badana
. duhkhakli
.
. bisanna
.
roger ārogya hetu dibārātra bhābe
śuśrusā
. karita sadā āhār nidrā che∂e
manda buddhi adhārmmik dus. ta
. durācārī
(Jh.)
rājya lobhe bhule gela hena upakārī
(K.) Amātyer mukhe rājā ei kathā śune stambhita o āścarjyānvita haye ballen
“Hāya! Āmār bhāi Asambhū āmār biruddhe sa
karche! Nā, ei rājya ta
. rajantra
.
āmi ār cāi nā.”
(S.)
kibā prayojan
rājsimhāsan
.
kāñcane rañjita bā∂ī
maraner
jāba sab phele
. kāle
manimuktā tākākā∂i
.
[] (K.) “Ei asār rājyer janya sahodarer saṅge juddha kare aṅge kalamkakāli
mekhe
.
rājatva-karā dūrer kathā, āmi indratva-o cāi nā.”
(S.)
(Jh.)
Asambhūr hāte rājya, svarna-si
mhāsan
.
.
binā raktapāte āmi kariba arpan.
sukhete kātuk
. kāl mama sahodar
svarna-si
mhāsane
base - haye - rājyaśvar
.
.
kāṅgāl beśe bane āmi kariba gaman
phalamūl kheye tathā - raksiba
jīban
.
(Jh.)
bane gaman kariba
rājya ebe parihari …………………
(D.)
jāba āmi tvarā kari, rājya ebe parihari
(K.) Rājā svīya rājyer prati bītaśraddha haiyā banagaman mānase - patnī Keśinīr
nikat. bidāy nite gaman karilen.
(S.) (D. Jh.) bidāy nibār tare
rājā gela dhīre dhīre
Keśinīr śayanamandire
pariteche
caksujal
gan. da
.
.
. bahi-abiral
śokasindhu uthali antare


Peta.
Rajyeśvar.

 –     
(Jh.)
………………………………… rānīke dākila
.
ogo priye utha
. bali
epatir dāk
. śuni .........[manuscript illegible].......... rānī
[] (K.) Rājā takhan balilen: “Priye! Jānte pārlem rājsimhāsan
ke∂e nebār mā.
nase Asambhū āmār biruddhe-sa∂ayantra
cālācche.
Jei
rājsi
mhāsaner
janya ni.
.

jer sahodar bidroh niśān u∂āte pāre, sei rājsimhāsan
tuccha tr. na
.
. khan. der
. nyāy
eksani
che∂e
dicchi.
”
.
(S.)
bidāy dāo go ohe priye, jāba āmi rājya che∂e
putra-jugal laye sāthe jeo tomār pitrghare
.
(S.)
ār nā dekhibe more
jāba āmi bohu dūre
(Jh.)
jābār kāle dekhe jāi go putrgane
. nayanbhare
(K.) Patiprānā
. satī patir mukhe akasmāt marmmāntika bākya śuniyā t~āhār hridaya
.
śatadhā bidīrna
. hate lāgla takhan jantranāy
. ballen:
(Jh.)
saṅge nāhi nile more
garala kheye jāba mare……………………
(D. Jh.) chāyārūpī abhāgīre lao go saṅginī kare
(Jh.)
cārūkanthe
. rājāmani
.
bale takhan ei bānī ………………………
(D. Jh.) thāka tumi grhabāse,
jāba āmi banabāse
.
[] (K.) Rājā takhan rānīke sāntvanār sure ballen: “Priye:
(S.)
bāsakāle niketane
śrgāler
śabdaśune
.
bhaye tumi ati bhītā hao
himsra-paśur
garjjan śuni banete bhay pābe tumi
.
kon prāne - bane jete cāo?
 marmmasthal byathita hate
(K.) Rājār ei nisedh
bānī śune rānīr
.
. puspakamal
.
lāgla. Svāmir pā dutī
dhare aśrupūrna-nayane
kātarakan. the
. jarāye
.
.
. balilen: “Jībane
kona bhiksā
. āpnār kāche cāi ni, adya ei bhiksā cāi.”

Bidroher.
Garjan.

Puspakomal.
.


 –     
(S.)
abalā satī nārīr pati alañkār
pati bine nāhi śobhe abanī mājhār
emon sādher pati tumi je āmār
(Jh.)
ekākī nā jete diba baner mājhār
(K.) Rānīke
nānārūp praboth
.
. diyeo rekhe jete asamartha haoyāte takhan duijane
duitī
śiśu
bok
se
dhariyā
janmabhūmi - tyāger nimitta prastut hailen. Eman
.
.
samaye rājā aśrupūrna
. - nayane janmabhūmike sambodhan kariyā ballen: “Ayi!
Campaka - ānandadāyinī svargādapi gariyasī janmabhūmi, śiśukāl hate - tomār
śyāmal bakse
. kata khelechi tomār phalmūl kheye ei deha pus. tha
. karechi. Mātah.
tomāke pranām.
Āj ciradiner janya tomār kāṅgāl chele tomāy che∂e bahu dūre
.
calla.” Ei bale rāja rānī.
.
[] (S.) (Jh.)
dhīre dhīre jāy re
Campaka nagar parihari…………………
Projābrnda
tyāg kari………...…………
.
(D. Jh.) prāner
. śiśu bokse
. dhari
(S.)
rājār paścāte - cale Keśī mahārānī
.
(Jh.)
nayanjale baksa
. bhāse gajendra - gāminī
(K.) Tāhārā bahu - durgam giri kāntār maru atikram kare abaśese
. - jalapūrna ek
- mahāmatī nadīr kūle upanīta halen latā bitān suśobhita ektī
brk
. dumur
.
. ser
. tale
śiśu duitī
rekhe.
.
(S.)
(Jh.)
rānīke
takhan
laiye rājan
.
nadīte kātila
s~ātār
.
niye parapāre
rākhi Keśinīre
jalete nāmila ābār
s~ātār dila nadīr jale
rānīke
rākhiyā tīre ………………………
.
putragan ānibāre ………………...………
prāner
. bā[ndhab] ānibāre ……………...…
(K.) Rājā jakhan nadīr madhyapathe ese upasthita halen eman samay duijan Kaibartta kathā bale ekkhānā naukā beye jācchila. Kaibarttader kathā sune pitā āschen
mane kare Jayasen ānandita haye balla:

 –     
[] (S.) śīghra kare esa pitah. nadī s~ātāriyā
śāntī kara āmādere bukete dhariyā
eman niśītha kāle-nadīr puline
taba pāne ceye āchi bhay lāge prāne
.
(Jh.)
ohe pitah. esare
nite tvarā āmādere…………………
(K.) Takhan Kaibarttagan eirūp nibhrta
. ban mājhe śiśur dāk
. śune cintita o āścarjyānvita hailen.
(S.)
śuniyā śiśur dāk
. Kaibartta duijan
cintita bismita tārā haila takhan
bijan nadīrkūle kebā śiśu dāke
.
esa esa bābā boli ati monosukhe
(Jh.)
giye tārā dekhila
kebā śiśu dāke
sethā…………………..
.
(K.) Takhan Kaibarttarā Jayasen o Jayadattake nadīr tīre dekhte pela, śiśuduiti
.
dekhe tāhāder antare putra-sneher bhāb uday halo. Āj duiti
. putraratna lābh karlām, ei bole:
(Jh.)
ānanda hrdaye
tārā
.
śiśujugal niye gela ……………………...
tule nila naukā pare ……………………..
niye gela naukāy kare ……………….…
[] (K.) Kaibarttader, prasthāner alpaksa
. n. parei - Sambhūmitta rājā nadī haite
uthe
putrajugal
nā
dekhe.
.
(S.)
kabhu brk
kabhu nadī jale
. satale
.
dau∂iye tālāsa kare
kabhu murcchā jāy
kabhu kare hāy
kabhu k~āde uccasvare
(Jh.)
k~ādi rājā dākila
.
ohe putra esa bali ……………………
esa esa prānamani
……………………
.
(D. Jh.)
nā dekhiye tomādere baksa
. mama phete
. jāye
(K.) Putraganer
pūrna
. antardhāne - rājā duhkha
.
. hrdaye:
.

 –     
(S.)
k~ādiyā balilen rājā gada gada bhāse
.
jādumani hārālem āji hethāy ese
tāhāder laye jadi kaṅgāler bese
(Jh.)
bhiksā
phiri deśe deśe
. māgi prānadharī
.
(S.)
rahitām tabu sukhe - e bhaba mājhāre
klāntihārā śāntibharā śiśu bakse
. dhare
(Jh.)
duhkha
bhule rahitām
.
prāner
. jādu bakse
. dhari……………….……
jāduganer badan here………………….……
[] (K.) Anek anusandhān kareo jībanasarbbasva putra duiti
. nā peye rājā śok
santapta-hrdaye
rā
nīr
nika
t
jābār
uddeśye
ābār
nadīr
jale
s~ātār
kātte
.
.
.
. lāglen.
(S.)
punah. punah. phire cāy
jadi śiśur dekhā pāy ………….……………..
(D. Jh.) prāne
. nāhi - māne hāy ………………………
(K.) Mahārāj Sambhūmitta jakhan nadīr madhyapathe ese upasthit halen takhan
pañcaśata banik
. ekkhāni naukā laye bānijye jācchila. Candrāloke Keśinī soundarjer sāmrājya bistār kare prastarmayī pratimār nyāy nirabe base āche. Keśinīke
dekhe - banikerā
jijñāsā karla.
.
(S.)
ke tumi rūpasī nārī ethā ekākini
base ācha kāhār lāgi kaha go ekhani
abaśese
. mahārānī bale nimnasvare
parapāre gechen rākhi hethāy more
bilamba nā kari tini nite - abhāgīre
(Jh.)
sātārī - bipula bārī āsiben tīre
(K.) Banikerā
eke aparke ballo: “Eman ujjval lābanyamayī ramanī mūrtti āmāder
.
carmma cakse
. ār kakhano dekhinī. Jena sarater pūrna
. śaśī bhūtale patita hayeche.”
Jyais. ta
ba
nik
rā
nīke
ballo:
“Ogo
rānī,
tumi
naukāy
uthe
.
.
.
. paro.
. Ekhan āmi []
tomāke niye jāba.” Baniker
kathā śune basanter samīrane
.
. mrdu
. kampitā mādhabī
latikār nyāy rānīr dehalatikā k~āpite lagila.
(S.)

Kesinī takhan
kariye rodan
kahila binay dhīre
Colloquial form of hetā.

 –     
āmi abhāginī
janmaduhkhinī
.
nionā bali go more
pati jadi hethā āsi nāhi here more
śokete ākul habe k~ādi - uccaihsvare.
.
ekhano chāre ni dugdha āche eko chele
(Jh)
ke khāoyābe ksīr
. nanī tumi more nile.
(K.) Rānī
balilen:
. takhan kātarkan. the
. banikke
.
(D. Jh.) duther śiśu karte raksā
. - cāhitechi ei bhiksā
.
chāra more tumi krpādāne
.
tāder bihane āmi
tabe haba pāgalinī
putraśoke jvali rātridine
 banik t~ār kathāy kanapāt
(K.) Rānī
. eirūp anek kākuti minati karā sattveo dusmati
.
.
.
nā karīyā t~āhāke balapūrbbak naukāy tule naukā che∂e dilen. Naukāy,
(S.)
patiputra śoke rānī
. pāgalinī prāy
kabhu uthe
. kabhu base dhare rākhā dāy
āsā
dh
śrābane
jena barse
. .
. jaladhar
(D.)
tatodhik aśrujal bahe dharadhar
[] (K.) Patiputra śoke pāgalinīprāy:
(D. Jh.) k~āde rānī
karāghāt kare śire
. uccaihsvare
.
patiputra kothā bole bole
nis. thur
banikga
ne
tule more jalajāne
.
.
.
niye jāy ati kautuhale
phātiyā
nā dekhiye putramukh
. jāiteche buk
prānapati
nā dekhiye ār
.
patiputra nāhi dekhā
kapāle ki chila lekhā
janma kire k~ādite āmār

Emended. e author of the manuscript has tried to correct a misspelling. e result is not
clear.

Durmati.

 –     
(Jh.)
dugdha kebā dibe go
Jayadattake snehabhare……………………
candrer mata badan bhare…………………
mā baliye dākbe
kāre……………...………
.
(D. Jh.) mā baliye dākbe
kāre, dugdha kebā dibe go ……
.
(K.) Banikgan
Keśinīke niye jābār alpaksan
.
. pare Sambhūrāj jal hate uthe
. rānīke je
brk
. ser
. tale rekhegiyechilen, sei brk
. ser
. tale giye dekhlen rānī nei. Samudra kalloler
mata rājār śokocchās uthilo
takhan
uccaihsvare
ballen: “Priye! Emon bipader
.
.
samay tumi-o āmār hrdaye
nidārun
śokaśalākā
biddha
kare cale gele.”
.
[] (S.) dāke
rājā karunsvare
ohe priye bali
.
.
kothāy gele tvarā kare esa ethā bali
sādā
. śabda mahārānīr
. kichu nā pāila
(Jh.)
caksujale
baksabhāse
k~adiyā uthila
.
.
.
eke to śiśur soke hayechi kātar
tomāy hetha nā heriyā k~apiche antar
(Jh.)
esa esa prānapriye
.
kothā gele tvarā kare…………..………...
śānti kara abhāgāre………………………
(K.) Rājā rānīr
. śoke muhyamān haye - nad-nadī-brk
. sa
. jāhā sāmne dekhitechen,
tāhākei sambodhan kariyā balitechen.
(S.)
karuna
bale sambodhane
. rodane
giri nadī śākhā śākhī
ākāś paban
deba raksagan
.
tarulatā paśu pākhī
kon pathe gele pāba dārā chele
bala more krpā
. kare
tāder bihane
rahiba kemane
jāba āmi prāne
. mare
(S.)
kothāy jāba ki kariba bhebe nāhi pāi
(D. Jh.) kothāy giye śoke pa∂ā ei aṅge ju∂āi

Kothāy.
Po∂ā.

Aṅga.


 –     
[] (K.) Rājā śoker bhār hrdaye
dhāran. karte nā pere mrtyuke
dākte
lāglen:
.
.
.
“Ohe mrtyu,
tumi kothāy? Āmāke grās-karo, ohe - rabi śaśī-bajramālā, tomār
.
kaksacyuta
haye.”
.
(S.) dhvamsa
. kara - abhāgāre
binaye kātare bali……………………
(D. Jh.) duhkha
ār sahite nāri ……………..…
.
(S.)
śokete pāgal haye Sāmbhūmitta hāy
bajrāhata mrgasama
edikete dhāy
.
nagar prāntar bahu ghuri abaśese
.
upanīta halen tini Taksaśilā
deśe
.
(Jh.)
upanīta halare
klānta dehe anāhāre…………………
nagar prāntar ghuri rājan……………
(D.)
(K.) Rājā Taksaśilār
ek puspodyāne
prabeś kare āpādamastak kāpa∂ diye ek khānā
.
.
śilār upar nidrā gelen. Sei samay Taksaśilār
rājār mrtyu
haoyāte rājsimhāsan
śūnya
.
.
.
chila, kāran tāhār santān santati keha chila nā. Amātyabarga rājsimhāsan
śūnya
.
thākā ucita nahe bibecanā kare pusparath
che∂e
dilen.
.
[] (S.) dhīre dhīre cale rath atimanohar
ihār paścāte cale śata śata nar
dundhubhī nināde nrtya
kare nācoyālī
.
gāyak gāyikā gāy diye karatāli.
(Jh.)
huludhvani kara go
meyegane madhursvare………………….
(S.)
Sambhūmitta je udyāne nidrā jāitechila
pusparatha
se udyāne prabeś karilo
.
(Jh.)
pradaksin
. karila tāre
saptambār pusparatha
……………………
.
(S.)
purohita takhan
ultāye
basan
.
dekhila caranatal

Tomra.

 –     
(Jh.)
Śambhūrājā
kopāle
rājcihna
. dekhila
…………………
(K.) Purohita takhan sakalke ballen: “Śilāy nidrita ei byakti-i Taksaśilar
rājā habār
.
upajukta calun ei udyāne tāke āj rājpade abhisikta
kari.
”
Takhan
sakale
utphulla
.
hrdaye
Sambhūrājke
dākte
lāglen.
.
.
[] (S.) (Jh.)
ohe prabhu utha
. re
nidrā tyaji-rathopare ……………………
(D. Jh.) …………………………………………
(K.) Śambhūrāj nidrā ate uthe
kena?” Takhan
. jijñāsā karilen: “Āpnārā dākchen
.
sakale balilen:
(S.)
(D. Jh.)
rājā tomāy kariba
Taksaśilār
rājyamājhe
…………………
.
…………………………………………
(K.) Takhan Sambhūrāj atikaste
. śokabhāb gopan kare madhur kan. the
. - balilen:
“Āpnārā ei pather kāṅgālke kenai bā rājpade baran. karben? Ei rājyer ki kona rājā
nei?” Takhan prajāpunja balilen:
(S.)
chila ek narapati - sarbbagunajuta
.
sohāge raksita
. tini chila prajājata
marana
. kabale tini giyechen go cale
(D. Jh.) ei samsāre
keha - nāi tār patnīkanyāchele
.
(S.)
sei kārane milimiśi morā sarbbajan
rājabaran. tomāy mora kariba ekan
(Jh.)
utha
. prabhu rathopare
bilambe ār kārjya nāire ……………………
[] (K.) Śāmbhūrāj prajāpuñjer kākuti-minati upeksā
. karite nā pāriyā abaśese
.
pusparathe
uthe
.
. basilen.

Sambūrājā.
Padatale.

Sambūrāj.

Sambūrāj.


 –     
(S.)
dhīre dhīre cale rath
Sambhūrājke bakse
. laye……………………
jayadhvani karago
jubābrddha
sabe mile ……………………
.
nārīgane
. sabe mile huludhvani karago
(K.) Mahārāj Śambhūmitta Taksaśilār
rājsimhāsan
lābh kare sucārurūpe rājya
.
.
śāsan karite lāgilen. Jakhan prānādhik
putraganer kathā mane pare,
.
. takhan śatasahasra-brścik
jena
tār
bak
se
da
mśan
kare.
Tībra
jvālā
sajhya
karte
nā pāriā tini
.
.
.
gada gada svare balten:
(S.)
putradhan bine rājya ~ādhār rajanī

biphal suramyabārī
. hirā muktāmani …[manuscript illegible]
(D. Jh.) parer chele kole nile maner āgun dvigunajvale
eki daśā hala mora bhubane
dārā putra nāhi dekhā - kapāle ki chila lekhā
maner āgun nibāba kemane
(K.) Bhoh. śrotāman. dalī
. ekhāne Sambhūmitter kathā rekhe Kaibarttader ghare
Jayasen o Jayadatta ki prakāre āche calun ekbār darśan kare āsi.
[] (S.) Kaibartterā rakse
. śiśu parama jatane
śuklapakser
. c~āder mata bā∂e dine dine
(Jh.)
bā∂ite lāgila
Kaibarttader ghare śiśu ………….
bimal sundar sthāne cāy thākibāre
ābilatā aramyatā paṅka ghr. nā
. kare
(Jh.)
Kaibartterā cintā kare
śiśuganer
svabhāb
here
……………………
.
(K.) Takhan Kaibartterā bālakajugal Taksaśilar
rājāke upahār dilen.
.
(S.)
putrajñāne pālen rājā balak duijan
pitā putrer paricaya nā hala ekhan
(K.) Jyaistha
niye t~āhār sahit nānārūp bākya jāl bistār kare bibāher
. banik
. – rānīke
.
prastāb karlo, takhan rānī ghr. nā
. o lajjāy lajjābatīlatikār nyāy adhomukhī haye. Sei

Sambhūmitta.
Hīra.

Nibhāba.


 –     
aprītikar - prastāb pratyākhyān karilen. Takhan banik
. t~āhāke nānārūp pralobhan o bhay dekhāila. Rānī
. ihāte o bicalita nā hoye balilen:
(Daśakuśī)
(S.)
svāmirūpe pūrbbejāre
barāniya
ei samsāre
.
.
debajñāne karechi pūjan
nirāśer āśātaru
chila mor paramaguru
tini bine āndhār bhuban
[] (S.) satītvadhan bikray kari ei anāthinī
kabhu nāhi haba tomār aṅga bilāsinī
more badha kara jadi astra aṅgemārī
(D. Jh.) svāmi pade baran. tabu karite nā pāri
(K.) Banik
sye
. byartha manorath hayeo tathāpi bideśe bānijya karanopalak
.
. jābār
kāle kām pipāsā caritārtha karte pārbe bale rānīkeo
niye jeta. Jakhan se kām
.
kalusita
h
rdaye
rā
nīke
sparśa
karite
udyata
hay,
takhan
rānī
.
.
.
. śīlānusmrti-bhāvanā
.
o buddher gun. śarana
. kare ei baliten:
(S.)
ohe Buddha dīnabandu uddhār kara abhāgīre
bipade pa∂echi āmi dāki
tomāy bāre ()
.
abalāganer bal
tomārī caranatal
.
tumi bīne keha nāire abhāginīr ei samsāre
.
Buddhake dākito
jabe rānī
.
. karunsvare
.
dus. ta
. banik
. rānīr
. aṅga dharite nā pārere
(Jh.)
jvalanta āguner mata
rānīr
aṅga
tapta
takhan
……………………
.
cinte banik
. mane mane
ei keman adbhutā nārī ………………………
(D. Jh.) bujhte āmi nāi pāri, ei kemon adbhuta
[] (K.) Ekdin banik
rājghāte
naukāte rekhe
. Taksaśilār
.
. naukā b~edhe rānīke
.
katak manoram sāmagrī
laye
Sambhūrājke
upahār
dilen.
Takhan
rājā banikke
.
.
ballen: “Banik
mahāśay
adyarātri
eikhāne
nā
tyābhinay
habe.
Tāhā
dekhe
jāben.”
.
.
Takhan banik
. sasambhrame ballen: “Mahārāj naukāte āmār strīke rekhe esechi.”

Adbhutā.

 –     
(S.)
hethā jadi thāki āmi ke raksibe
tāre
.
se kārane
prabhu more
. thākte nāri ksama
.
narapati Sambhumitta Jayasen Jayadatta
nadīr kūle dila pāthāiye
.
pāthāiye
dila re
.
bālak duijan nadīr kule ………………
(S.)
henakāle Jayadatta kare jijñāsan
bala dādā krpā
. kare pūrbba bibaran.
kebā mātā kebā pitā moder ei samsāre
.
ki prakāre elem morā Kaibartter ghare
(Jh.)
bala dādā dayā kare
mātā pitā kebā moder ………………………
(D.)
kothāy moder janmabhūmi prakāśiye bala tumi
[] (K.) Ai dike naukār modhye putraśokabihvalā rānī
. Jayadatter ei marmmasparśī bānī śraban. kare tār hrdayvī
nār
diye uthla.
Tini bhāblen:
.
. pratyek tār jhankār
.
.
“Eta rātre nadīr upakūle bālak duijan eirūp balābali karechen kena? Tārā o ki āmār
putra Jayasen o Jayadatter mata hatabhāgā haye janmagrahan karechen. Dekhī
tārā ār o ki bale.”
(S.) (D. Jh.) naukāte d~ā∂iye rānī
śune bālaker bānī
.
kān pātiye ati sābdhane
Jayasen balen takhan
ogo bhaire kara śraban
duhkher
āgun uthila
mor prāne
.
.
.
(S.)
janminu rājkule morā rājār chele
mātā pitā abhāgārā hārāi nadīr kūle
(Jh.)
tumi ati śiśu chile
(D. Jh.) balitechi ekhan bhāire ……………………
(S.)
Campaka nagarī moder śuna janmabhūmi
Sambhūmitta pitā moder - Keśinī jananī
[] (K) Jayasen o Jayadatter kathā śune rānī
. bujhte pārlen. Sei bālak duti
. ār keha
nay, tāhāri putra Jayasen o Jayadatta.

Sambhūmitta.

 –     

Manihārā phaninī jena punah. mani
. prāptite dhairjycyūta ghate
. seirūp rānī
.

hārānu nidhi putragan peye ār sthir thākte pārlen nā. Unmādinir mata naukā
hate uthe:
. “Hāy putra Jayasen, hāy putra Jayadatta, āmi toder kāṅgālinī mā esechi.”
(S.)
śokete ākul hoye k~ādi uccai svare
bālak duijan ja∂āye dhare baksopare
.
(Jh.)
k~āde rānī
. ghana ghana
bakse
. dhari jādugan …………………………
pāiyā putra dhana ……………………………
(D. Jh.) Keśinīr kathā śune
bujhila bālakgane
moder mātā ei abhāginī
mā, mā, bali karunasvare
k~āde rānīr
.
. caran. dhare
śokasindu uthale takhani
(Jh.)
omā, omā, mā [manuscript illegible]
bakse
dhara
āmādere
……………….
.
aṅga moder abaś hala……………….
kothā chile etadin …………………...
(D. Jh.) jādugan bakse
. dhare k~āde rānī
. uccaisvare
[] (K.) Rānī
. prāner
. dulāl duti
. bakse
. ja∂āye dhare ajasra dhārāy k~ādchen.
Takhan ekjan lok ei byāpār dekhe baniker
nikat. giye balla. Takhan ghrtasikta
.
.
analer nyāy baniker
rāg prajjvalita haye uthla.
Se rājsamīpe giye ballen: “Rā.
.
jan! Āpni je praharī pāthāiyāchen,
jānte pārlum tāhārā atyācār kareche.” Baniker
.
.
mukhe rājā ei kathā śunibāmātra - krodhānvita
simher
nyāy garjjan kare ghātakke
.
.
deke
ballen: “Ohe ghātak. Śīghra nadīr kūlhate balak dutī
.
. maśāne niye badh karo.
Jena tāder pāpbadan ār dekhte nā pāi.” Takhan ghātak rājār ādeś peye:
(S.)
hāte asi caksulāl
dau∂e hethā jāi
.
dante kare kharamara jamadūt prāy
nis. thur
ghātak takhan tīks. na
.
. raśi diyā
bālakere bādhe
tvarā
ka
siyā
.
. kasiyā
.
bandan sthān hote rakta pa∂te lagla

Dhairjycyuti.
Hārāno.

Pa∂ite.


 –     
jantranā - sāhīte nārī k~āddiyā kahila
sāhite nārī go
eman jantranā māgo ………………
rakta pa∂e dara dara ……………..
(D. Jh.) bala ghātak tvarā kare bādhle kena āmādere
[] (K.) Pāsān
ghātak bālak jugaler kathā śune bahu tarjjan garjjan kare
. hrday
.
ballo: “Kena b~edheci ei kīl, ei lāthi, ei capetāghāti
tār uttar debe.” Ei bale bālakder
.
sahyaśaktir atīt kīl lāthite tāhāder aṅga jarjarita kare maśāne niye calla. Eman
samay hrday
bhedī karun. bilāpe diganta mukharita kare tārā balle:
.
(S.)
aṅga moder abaś halo cale nā caran.
abhāginī māke phele śvaśāne kari gaman
āmāder hay hārā
habe jena jñānahārā
nayanete bahibe dhārā baksa
. phete
. jāy (ekhan)
(Jh.)
calilām, calalām
anāthinī māke pheli ……………...…….…
maśānete janmer tare ……………………
putraganer duhkha
dekhe
.
k~ade rānī
mahāśoke
…………………………
.
āmār maran. kena hala nāre
ei duhkha
nā dekhite ……………………………
.
putraśokī haoyār āge ……………………………
eki chila mor kapāle
dahite hāy śokānale ……………………..
[] (S.) lutāye
pa∂ila bhūme putra putra bali
.
mahājha∂e pa∂e jena dharāte kadalī
(Jh.)
ga∂āga∂i diye k~āde
karāghāta kari buke ………………………
ālu thālu beśe rānī
. ……………..…………
(K.) Janaika pan. dit
rājār
. pather madhye bālak jugaler kāhinī śune byathita hrdaye
.
nikat. ese ballen: “Rājan! Āpni adya je bālak bhrtya
duijaner
prā
nada
n
der
.
.
. . ādeś

Nāri.
As above.

Śmaśāne.


 –     
diyechen tāhārā prakrta
. dosī
. kinā bicār kare dekhā āpnār ekānta ucit chila. Rājan
bicār nā kare dosī
. sābyāsta karā ihā rājadharma nahe.”
(S.)
rājyer rājā jadi kabhu svecchācārī hale
rājyabāsi jvale mare rājār pāpānale
(Jh.)
rājār amaṅgala sumaṅgla jata
ghate
rājyer
n
rper
gu
ne
.
.
. ………………………………
 gune prajāgan, duhkhī sukhī sarbbaksan
rājār /nrper
.
.
. .
[] (K.) Pan. diter
ei sunīti pūrna-bānī
śune rājā ballen: “Pan. dita
.
.
. mahāśay pūrnendur
amal
dhabala
jyotśnāy
andhakār
rajanī
jeman
ālokita
hoye uthe,
seirūp
.
.
āpnār jukti pūrna-bānī
śune āmi je tāhāder bicār nā kare mahābhul kare phelechi,
.
tāhā bujhte pārlem.” Takhan rājā ek dūtke deke
ballen: “Ohe dūt śīghra śmaśāne
.
giye bālak dutī
. niye esa.” Ghātak asahāy mrga
. śisur nyāy ei bālakdutī
. dharāśāyī
kare niskā
sita
asi
uttolan
pūrbbak
tāhādigake
badh
karite
udyata
haiyāche,
dūt
. .
badhya sthāner kichu dūr hate ei drśya
dekhe
ākul
ka
n
the
bale
u
thla,
.
..
.
(S.)
rākho rākho ohe ghātak
kāta
nā
go
ebe
bālak
………………………
.
ādeś more kareche
nite tāder rājasthāne ………………………
(D. Jh.) uddhār kare bālakgane nila tvarā rājasthāne
nrpati
takhan
kare jijñāsan
.
mrdu
bhā
se
tāhādere
.
.
kaha bhrtyagan
sab bibaran.
.
prakāśiye tvarā more
[] (Jh.)
kibā kārjya karecha
baniker
patnīsane
…………………
.
niśītha rajanī joge ……………….
(D.)
bhay lajjā tyāg kare
prakāśiye balore
(D. Jh.) nrpatir
kathā śune kahila bālakgane
.
ati duhkhe
kariye rodan
.
baniker
patnī nahe tini moder mātā hay
.
ohe rājan kara śraban.

e two words are given as alternatives.

 –     
(Jh.)
śuna rājan moder bānī
.
tini moder hay jananī ……………………….
(D.)
dekhlem mātā abhāgārā bali tomāya iha tvarā
(K.) Bālakder ei kathā śune rājā āścarjyānvita haye ballen: “Priya bālakgan tomrā
Kaibartter chele haye baniker
patnīke “mā” bale paricay diccha kena?” Takhan
.
bālakgan balla raktākta dui hasta añjalī baddha kare kātar kan. the
. ballo:
(S.)
Kaibartta nay moder pitā karaha śraban.
prakāśiye kaba tomāy moder bibaran.
janminu rājjakule morā rājār chele
(Jh.)
mātā pitā abhāgārā hārāi nadīr kule
[] (S.) Sambhūmitta pitā moder Keśinī
. jananī
.
mātrbhūmi
Campakanagar sampadaśālinī
.
(Jh.)
śuna śuna ohe rājan
āche mātā naukāpare ……………………
(D.)
duhkhinī
jananī
.
. moder āche rājan naukāpare
(K.) Jayasen o Jayadatter kathā śune rājā bujhlen, ei bālak duiti
. ār keu, nay, t~āhār
sneher dulāl Jayasen o Jayadatta. Takhan t~āhār badanaman. dal
. apūrbba ānande
hatāt
Takhan tini svarnāsan
hate uthe
. meghamukta ākāśer nyāy ujjval haye uthla.
.
.
.
ballen: “Batsagan! Āmi tomāder abhāgā pitā Sambhūmitta” ei bale.
(S.)
(Jh.)
ja∂āye dharila rājā tvarā tāhādere
ksa
. ne
. ksa
. ne
. buke dhare mukhe mukha kare
ānandāśrū bahila
gan. da
bhese
dara
dare
………………
.
nayan jugale rājār ……………………...
(D.)
kibā sukh, svarga sukh - ei samsāre
putra mukh
.
(S.)
bālake takhan
kariye rodan
kahila kātara svare
janam duhkhi
. nī
. moder jananī
.
āche pitah. naukāpare
[] (K) Pitah. baner harinī
. jeman byādher jāle baddha haye byādher hāte bahu
lāñchanā bhog kare, tādrśa
dvārā naukāy
. āmāder mātāke banik
. lauhaśrṅkhaler
.
b~edhe rekhe t~āhāke asahanīye jantranā
. dicche.

 –     
(Jh.)
ohe pitah. bali-re
tomār carantale
………………
.
(D.)
cala pitah. nadīr tīre, moder māke ānibāre
(K.) Mahārāj Sambhūmitta putraganer mukhe prānapriyār
kathā śune āhlāde un.
mattva haye nadīr tīre giye banikke
ballen:
“Ohe
bhai
ba
nik!
.
. Tomar naukar upar
je nārītā
. āche, se āmār sahadharmminī. Ekdin gabhīr rātre daibadurbipāke pa∂e
t~āhāke ek nadīr kūle hārāye phelechilam, bhāi krpā
. kare āmār jīban saṅginīke
phirāye dāo.” Rājār eirūp kathā śune banik
balla:
“Phirāye
dicchi Mahārāj, t~āhāke
.
niye jān.” Takhan,
(S.)
rājā uthi
. naukāpare
(D. Jh.)
dāke
tini ati karunasvare
.
.
prānapatir
kathā
śuni
rā
nī
haye
pāgalinī
.
.
k~ādiye uthila
uccaihsvare
.
.
mūrcchāgata hala rānī
.
rājār carane
. pa∂e ………………………
(Jh.)
(D.)
Keśinīr nām dhare
etadine pati dekhi, mūrcchāgata hala rānī
.
[] (S.) caitanya labhila jabe satīkulamani
.
param sohāge tuli kahe naramani
.
(Jh.)
ohe priye k~eda nā
cale ebe rājpure …………………………
putragan tomār kāche ……………………
(D.)
calo ebe rājpure, putragan laye sāthe
(S.)
patnīputra laye rājā gela rājpure
bājila maṅgalabādya ati mis. tasvare
.
rājā Sambhūmitta
ānande pramatta
ānandita naranārī
ānanda bājar
basila ebār
Taksaśilā
rājapurī
.
(Jh.)
ānander bājar basila
Taksaśilā
rājyer
mājhe
……………………
.


Unmatta.
Calo.

 –     
rājā rānīr
. milan hala ………………………
mātā-putrer milan hala ……………………
(D. Jh.) mātā putrer milana hala, ānander bājār basila
(K.) Jātake ukta hayeche - pūrba janme-o Jayasen o Jayadatta Sambhūmitta rājār
strī rānī
. Keśinīr putrarūpe janmagrahan. kariyāchilen. Sei janme rānīr
. ekānta
anurodhe rājā Sambhūmitta putradvayer krī∂ār-janya brk
sāgra
hate
dui
ti
. .
. paksī.
śābak (sā∂ī paksīr
chānā)
nāmāye
diyāchilen.
Śuk
o
sā∂ī
bāsāya
phire
[]
śābaka.
dvayer adarśane bicched jantranāy
. abhibhūta hayechila. Krī∂ā śes. hale rājā Sambhūmitta - śābakadvayke ābār jathāsthāne rekhe esechilen. Śābakadvay phire
peye śuka sā∂ī biśes. pulakita hala. Śābakadvay haran. kare śuk sā∂īke asahya
bicched jantranāy
. rekhe punah. phirāye deoyāy rājā Sambhūmitta - ihajanme pūrbbajanmer duskarmmer
janya svīya putradvay o rānīke
hārāye aśes. bicched jātanā
.
.
bhog karatah. punah. tāhādigake - phire peyechilen.
(S.)
je jeman karmma-kare e bhabasamsāre
.
teman karmmer phal nite habe śire
Sambhūmitta pālā ebe hala samāpan
(Jh.)
premānande Buddha bala ohe sādhugan
samāpta
bala Buddha bala - bala jay-jay bala sabe
premānande bāhu tule
nirānanda dūre jābe
[] torā ciniyā neyare svajāti bandhugan
(āmār) Buddha Dharmma Samgha
dhane ()
.
 e dharāte uday halo trirataner
ahimsār
mantra
diye
jīb
tvarāte,
.
kālpanik pūjā chā∂ī, arahater pūjā kari
bhaba sindhu pā∂i dite ai dayāl bine,

himsā
. nindā dalādali che∂e kara kolākoli
juger hāoyā gāye tuli aikya bandhane
ābhijātya jed chāra, nikāya gaurab tyāgkara

Neore.
Tarāte.

Kolākuli.


 –     
maitrī bhābanā kara ekāgra mane
dui saptamī ek masete amābasyā pūnimāte
mantra niya ekjogete antima sādhane
grhi
. jārā pañcasīle - sakāle ār baikāle
nā hay jīban jābe biphale ta∂ibi kemane
sarbba dik mangala habe - jāti dharmmer gaurab bā∂be
dīn Bhāskarer
ei prārthanā jātir carane
.
.
[] din kātāilām
tomāre bhābiyā bhabe
.
……………………………………
dharmmare dibā halo - abasān - ~ādhār dekhe- kā~pe prān.
jam kokilā uthila
dākiyā
.
.
āśāy () railām basi, dekhā-dibe ekdin āsi
āj kāl kare din gela caliyāre ()
(dharmmare) jñāti bandhur manda-balā- aisab karlām galār mālā
kebal tomāy pāiba baliyā
jadi tumi dekhā-dibe dayāl bale jānbe sabe
dankā
bājuk duniyā ju∂iyāre ()
.
(dharmmare) ahimsā
. parama dharmma saba dharmmer sāra marmma
jībagan jāy uddhār haiyā
Bhāskare
kay cintāki ār tumi jār karnadhār
.
.
sāhas āche se iśārā pāiyāre ()
[] morā dhvaṅśa halem maitrīr bihane re bandhu
husiyār Bauddha janagane
(bandhugan) jāder netrtve
. cali tārā kare dalādali
marme mari paraspar śune
nānā bahi istāhāre jāti kutsā pracār kare
ei bhābe pragati ki ānere bandhu
(bandhugan) Bauddha dharmme janma niyā abauddher nīti laiyā
svārthāndhe-phiri jane (),
mus. timeya
Bauddha jāti, nā bujhi pragatir rīti
.
dhamśa kare nānā pratisthānere bandhu
 aikyer sure
(bandhugan) samjoga
rākhi paraspāre, mete uthe
.
.
raksā
. nāhi ei kalpanā bine

Pūrnimāte.
.
K~āpe

Utho.
.


 –     
himsā
. nindā kara tyāg juger hāoyā gāye mākha
maitrī bābanā rākha aikya bandhane ………
(bandhugan) kul, nikāy jed chā∂a, svadharmer unnati kara
śunen Bauddha jana sādhārane
dīn bhāskarer
ei prārthanā jene śune cup theko nā
.
lāgche āgun moder gharer kone
[] bhaja Buddha deb, kaha Buddha deb, laha Buddha debe nāmre

bisay
. bāsanā- chā∂i mahā nidrā parihari
seijan nirbbān kārī
 premānande Buddha bala
bājāo midaṅga dol
.
ānande Buddha gun. gāore


dutiyampi
. tatiyampi
. – svaran kara punar bari
bhabanadīr o pārete cala
śākya kulamani
. – dibasa rajanī

bhramarā Buddha – gun. gāore
Buddha nāmrase – sei jan bhāse
.
sei jan nirbbān pāyare
jāgare jāgare baṅgīya Bauddha - kenare rayecha ghumāye ()
jegeche cīn, simhala
jāpān - jegeche tibbat nepāl bhūtan,
.
.
 mātiyā ()
bārmmā śyām haye - āguyān - sa
s
tha
saṅgīte
. ..
svārddha dvi sahasra barsa
udiye
. samaye - Bauddha dharma uthibe
.
ahimsār
mantre prthibī
- ju∂iye - uthibe
pūrna
.
.
.
. - jāgiyā ()
mahāmānaber bānī āgata prāye - ātma kalahe - (morā) kenare hāy,

Bhābanā.
Deber.

Moha.

Mrdaṅga.
.

Dhol.
.

Smaran.

Bāri.

Conventional religious literary motif, which was already present in Kālidāsa’s kāvya. e mind
sucks the nectar of the Buddha’s name, as the bee sucks the nectar of flowers. Ecstatic enjoyment
= rasa āsvāda (Sk.) tasting the (sweet) flavour. From the th c. onwards this is a typical Bengali
motif in the worship of Kāli and Krishna.

Jei.

Saṅgītite.

Sārddha.


 –     
svamāj dainandin hacche mrtaprāy,
svārthāndher mohe majiyā
.
himsā
. – dves. dvaita kālimā muchiye, jata dalādali jāore bhūliye
abheda dolāte duliye () ahimsār
patākā laiyā … ()
.
dīn Bhāskārer
ei
nibedan,
maitrī
bhābanāya
rata kara mana,
.
aikyer surete kari kolākuli - daore prān. s~apiyā … ()
[] Buddha bala Dharmma bala - man ekbār Saṅga bala
Buddha Buddha - Buddha bole bhabanadīr pāre cala, ()
bhabasindu taribāre - ∂āka Buddha karnadhāre
.
Buddha je ksudhāri
anna - Buddha je tr. s. nār
.
. jal
jale Buddha - sthale Buddha - candre Buddha - surje Buddha
anale anile Buddha - Buddha namare bhūman. dala
.
ār bandhu nāire
ei kebal Buddha bine ………………
ei kebal Dharmma bine……………
ei kebal Samgha
bine………………
.
(Jh.) jege utha
. Bauddha jubak svamāj jācche chāre khāre … ()
tathāgater gaurab tarī dubibeki
ghor ~ādhāre … (ai)
.
ābhijātya mo∂al jata, calche nāre rītimata
abidyāya haye mohit lāthi
. ghurāy ghare ghare … (ai)
dhvamśa
. hay jāti Dharmma, bujhiye dāo sār marmma
svārthak kara svīyajanma - svadharmmayī rākha ghere … (ai)
śīksita
. nāyak jārā - dalādalite ātmahārā
bharā svārthāndhe svamāj dhvamsa
jñāne tāder hrday
.
. kare
baṅgīya Bauddha chātrer prati, dīn Bhāskarer
ei
minati
.
ahimsā
. maitrī ki pragati bujhiye dāo tāder tare
[] man tui sādhan bhajan karli nā
(Jh.) - sādhaner dhan cintāmani
. tāre cinte pārli nā
dhara man kathā dhara Śrībuddher smaran. kara (hāy hāy re)
Buddha Dharmma Samgha
balle, pāper bhay ār rabe nā re (man)
.

Samāj.
Corrected by the author, who had originally written: Buddha bala.

Sūrje.

Svadharmmaī.

Ghire.

Ajñane.


 –     
janma jvarā bhaba byādhi rabe nā
guru guru guru bala ai mantra tomāy kebādila (hāy hāy re)
∂ākār matan ∂ākle tāre - dekhā pābe hrdantare
(re man)
.
āsalete ∂ākār matan ∂ākte jāna nā
kothāy ghar kothāy bā∂ī kothay kara basatgiri (hāy hāy re)
Sāriputra Mudgalāyan chila tārā prabhur śisya
. haila
tumi kon jugete kon śisya
. kule bala nā
(Jh.) prāni hatyā curi ār o jejan karibe
babicārer phal jīb niraye jāibe
mithyā kathā surāpān jejan baribe

dine-dine bhāgya laksī
. tāhāre chā∂ibe
śīlete sadgati hay svajan prakāśe
sādhu saṅge raṅga kara esa sādhu bhāse
.
sādhu saṅge kara prīti bhakti māthā noyāiyā
bhakti latā diye tāre caran dhara jarāiyā
[] nadīr bhāb nā bujhe (man) se nadīte jhāp dio nā
nadīr akul pāt[h]ār- dio nā s~ātār
jhāp- dile se kul pābe nā
giyechilem nadīr kule - katajan āchego bhule
nadīr dheu
dekhe mare
.
dayāl guru Śri Gautam āchen para pā∂e
(o man) - bhakti haile jete pāre paysār darkār kare nā
Buddha Dharmma Samgha
bala triratner nām svaran kara
.
tabe jete pārbe man
dhārmmikerā jete pāre nadīr para pare
pāpīrā jete pāre nā - hāṅgar kūmbhīr chā∂e nā
tomar dehatarī sojā kara man mājhīre tālās kara
tabe jete pārbe man
as. ta
śil
pañca
śil nāo he tāri smaran.
.
mukhe mettākarunādi
nitya kara bhābanā
.
tomār deha tarīr chay jan dārī tārā sadāy kare chal cāturī

Ja∂ā, meaning old age.
Byabhicārer.

Karibe.

Laksmī.
.

Smaran.
.

Sadāi.


 –     
bebaś kena ore abodh man
dīn hīn binay kahe dhara gurur caran.
guru bine bhaba sāgarer pāre jete pāre nā
[] Sambhūmitta pitā moder Keśinī jananī
prakāśiyā bale dilam suna rājmani
.
(Campak nagar chila moder janmabhūmi)
janmabhūmi chila moder Campak nagar
karmma dose
. halem morā nagar bāhir
Sambhūmitta pitā moder
Keśinī moder jananī ………………
prakaśiyā bale dilām ………………
ohe Buddha dīnabandhu - uddhār kara abhāgāre
bipade pa∂echi āmi - dāki
tomāy bāre bāre
.
anāthganer bal
tomārī caran. tal
tumi bine keha naire - anāthganer ei samsāre
.
 jabe anātha karun svare
Buddhake dākibe
.
.
dayā kare ekbār more - dekhā diye jāo āmāre uddhār kara abhāgāre
∂āki tomāy bāre bāre
bipade pa∂echi āmi
tumi bine gati naire
caran. dhare dāki
tomāy
.
adham baloke dāki
.
āmi tomay avatāre

Be is a Persian negative particle.
As mentioned above, on this page the author of the manuscript introduces an alternative ending
to Sambhūmitta’s story.

dākibe.
.


 –     
Sambhūmitta Pālā: English translation
[a]
Sambhūmitta’s ballad
(a devotional song based on a Buddhist birth-story)
writers
Madan Mohan Cākmā BA BL
and
Rāsamohan Baruā MA
singer
Śrījut Bābu Śaśāṅka Bikāś Chaudhurī
Village: Thegarpuni
.
Post Office: Bhātīkhāśin
.
Chittagong
 October  C.E.
[b]
Oh my mind, utter on [your] tongue “Buddha” [and] there will be no fear of
death
oh there will be no fear of death, there will be no fear of death
oh my mind, ceaselessly utter the name of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha
without Buddha, Dharma and Sangha there would be no release from the
world
Angulīmālā was a hunter, through the name of the Buddha he completed his
crossing [i.e. was saved]
at the end [of life], forever companion, do not forget the triple gem
to cross the ocean of life call the navigator Buddha
without the navigator Buddha there would be no release from the world
brick house, brick residence, the rich landlord
leaving the cage of life cannot take anything with him
these wealth, people, [are] night dreams
worship the triple gem, o senseless mind
so, you, do not forget this
(Jh.)
(so) don’t you forget
honey smeared, the name of the Buddha …………………

 –     
honey smeared, the name of the Dharma…………………
honey smeared, the name of the Sangha ………………….
(Jh)
don’t forget, don’t forget
such a day will not come again …………………..…....
the more you say, the more goodness will come………
say, say, again say ………………………………….…
honey smeared is the Buddha’s name………………….
[c]
in the same mouth, o friend, in which you ate milk and sugar
there they will put burning fire
great house, marvellous residence, favourite wife
at the time of leaving there is no companion for the road
wife, son, sister, nephew, nobody belongs to anybody
[all are] false affections of a short time, acquaintances of the road
if the clay pot [or its] lid break it is not possible to fix [them]
golden body, how will [you] be burned!
to whom will you give the brick house and the brick residence?
In whose hands will you deposit the key to the iron safe?
(Jh.)
nobody belongs to one
wife, son, sister, nephew …………………………
at the time of going, companion of the road ………
affections are of a short time ………………………
brick house, brick residence ………………………
speak of brother, speak of friend ……………….…
alone you come, alone you go …………………….
[d]
where is the Buddha for the suppliants, please, appear to me [just] once
most precious gem of my adoration, whom if I do not see my heart would
break
in what happiness, venerable Buddha, you have kept me; day and night, the

Cintāmani:
. wish-fulfilling gem.

 –     
fire of my possession burns my body!
showering [me] with the water of your love, [please] cool me down
the stream of life has no shore, [and] in the middle of the ocean [which has]
no shore I float around
there is no such friend [here], who calls out to ask [if I need help, i.e. to offer
his help]
 Oh! great liberated divinity
you are the Truth equal to the beautiful Karunā,
.
you welcome sorrow for the search of bliss
you fulfilled your excellence in your repeated births
you have gained knowledge, oh! great liberated divinity
when having churned the milk ocean of sorrow, you found the nectar
that [i.e. the path to liberation] you gave away [to your disciples] for
the benefit of living beings
you gave the world supreme knowledge, Oh! great liberated divinity
when the creatures of the three worlds wept, the gods appealed to you
having heard the wails of the miserable ones
again you made a trip to the world, o great liberated divinity
obeisance to [my] teacher
[e]
invocation
Oh you Buddha, ocean of compassion, friend of the poor, lord of the world
Buddha, the son of Śuddhodana, husband of Gopā, I salute you
Buddha who is the father of Rāhula, the refuge of those with no refuge
prostrating myself on the ground, I salute [you] with my eight limbs
firstly, I prostrate myself at the feet of the venerable Buddha
secondly, I humbly pay my respects to the Dharma
thirdly, I salute the assembly of the excellent people
I pay homage to the triple gem, prostrating myself to the ground

Literally “flow of becoming” thus referring to the Buddhist idea of the five aggregates continuously changing.

Personification of karunā.
.

Reference to Hindu myth in which the ocean of milk was churned to obtain the nectar that
made gods immortal. Means of liberation.

 –     
at the feet of the venerable Buddha I present my petition to please, o voice of mine,
come
first I salute all the elders
please accept my humbly spoken greetings
I send my respects to [my] father’s feet
from whose semen I was born, I sing Buddha’s song
I obediently bow down at my mother’s feet
in whose womb having been born, I sing songs of obeisance
and all the savants I praise
(Jh.)
I will sing the ballad of Sambhūmitta
(S.)
all of you people, listen to the story of Sambhūmitta
in your heart judge all merit and demerit
if you listen to this story there will be advent of knowledge
(Jh.)
I will openly speak, in the middle of this assembly
[] (K.) e very prosperous town of Campaka was, in ancient times, the playhouse of nature. Rows of buildings with very high cupolas decorated with coral,
opals and pearls used to increase the beauty of the town: Campaka was always
full of natural wealth.
(S.) the town of Campaka was full of natural crops and flowers
the happy subjects day and night practised non-violence [as] the
greatest Dharma
(Jh.) nobody ever thought of harming anybody
[ere] happily reigned in Campaka
a king named Sambhūmitta
treating them as his own children, he very carefully
cared for his subjects
(Jh.)
everybody was happy
floating on the waves of happiness ………………
(D. Jh.) always were the residents of Campaka ………
(K.) Sambhūmitta, the king of Campaka, had a queen named Keśinī and, like a
spring of peace in the desert of life

 –     
(S.)
he had two sons
Jayasen [and] Jayadatta……………….……
in the town of Campaka………………..……
(D) he had two sons, Jayasen [and] Jayadatta
[] (K.) He had a younger brother named Asambhūmitta. One day Asambhū
sat in the flower garden and thought: “If [my] elder brother were to die or to
get [too] old, indeed his sons would sit on the royal throne and there would be
happiness and prosperity. I too was born in a royal family, but in this life I shall
never get to know the joy of kingship. erefore, by hook or by crook, I shall usurp
the royal throne from my elder brother. Otherwise the moon of my fortune will
forever be covered with the darkness of hopelessness.”
(S.) if [my] elder brother does not leave the kingdom without a fight,
I would certainly take it by killing him with the strike of weapons
[and], oh yes, I shall kill his children.
(Jh.) so that no lineage from them will survive in the world
I will make their blood flow in a stream
having swum [in it] I shall quench my thirst in it
I will paint
the town of Campaka, [with] the blood of the children…………
a river of blood I will let flow ………………………….…….…
(K.) Asambhū took this vow [and] secretly giving riches to courtiers and friends
confused them so that they would think of Sambhūmitta as an enemy.
(S.) (Jh.)
he brought them to his side
giving much wealth ……………………………
confusing courtiers and friends ………..……….
[] (K.) One day, while His Majesty Sambhūmitta was sitting on the throne, a
minister came in an excited state and said: “Your Majesty, as a snake which is
brought up with care, becoming ready to bite his own master, spreads [his] large
hood, in the same way the one you brought up, holding him against your chest
with great love, that very one, the always nurtured Asambhū, today, wishing to
snatch away the kingdom from your hands, looks at you with poisonous eyes.”

Sambhūmitta.

 –     
(S.) if Asambhū ever got to suffer some disease
[you] became sad, suffering out of sorrow for his pain.
for the cure of [his] disease, day and night without resting
always you nursed [him] giving up eating and sleeping
the wicked, dishonest, mean criminal, performer of bad actions [as he is]
(Jh.) out of greed for the kingdom [he] forgot such a benefactor
(K.) Hearing these words from the mouth of the minister, the king, speechless and
surprised said: “My brother Asambhū is intriguing against me! No, I do not want
this kingdom any more.”
(S.) what is the use of
the royal throne
the golden palace
at the time of death
I shall leave all behind
[these] gems [and] money
[] (K) “Far from wishing to continue my reign [at the cost of] making war on
my brother, and consequently acquiring black infamy, I do not want even the
kingdom of heaven.”
(S.) in the hands of Asambhū the kingdom [and] the golden throne
I will put up with no blood shed.
let him spend time in happiness
(Jh.) having sat on the golden throne and reigned as king
[now] dressed like a beggar I will go to the forest
eating fruits and roots I will maintain [my] life there
(Jh.)
I will go to the forest
I now give up my kingdom ……………………….
(D.)I am going, I am hurrying, I now give up the kingdom
(K.) e king having become disgusted with his own kingdom, and intending to
go to the forest, went to his wife Keśinī in order to take leave.
(S.) (D. Jh.) in order to take leave
the king went slowly
to the room of Keśinī
tears were falling down his cheeks incessantly
having an ocean of grief in his mind

Lit. smear my body.

 –     
(Jh.)
he called his queen
Oh! you my beloved, do get up ………………………
is call of her husband……[manuscript illegible]……… the queen
[] (K.) e king then said: “My dear, I have come to know that my brother intending to usurp the royal throne is leading a conspiracy against me. e throne
for which one’s own brother can raise the flag of rebellion, that royal throne like
a worthless bit of grass I am right now throwing away.”
(S.) oh! my beloved bid me farewell, I shall go away leaving the
kingdom, taking with you the two children please go to your father’s
house
(S.) you shall never see me again
I shall go very far
(Jh.) but at the moment of going [forever] let me see the children to fill up
my eyes
(K) [When] that virtuous wife, devoted to her husband, suddenly heard from the
mouth of her husband these heart breaking words, her heart broke into a hundred
pieces. en, in pain, she said:
(Jh.)
if you don’t take me with you
I shall die taking poison……………………………
(Jh.) please take me along as your companion, me who am like your
shadow and am wretched
(Jh.)
the gem of a king in his beautiful voice
then said these words…………………………………………….
(D.) you stay and live at home, I shall go and live in the forest
[] (K.) en the king said to the queen in a tone of consolation: “My dear,
(S.) while living in a house
on hearing the cry of a jackal
you become very frightened in terror.
hearing the roar of the ferocious beast you will be terrified in the forest
what makes you so brave that you want to go to the forest?
(K.) [When] the queen heard these prohibitive words of the king, her heart, so as
a flower, became pained. Having embraced and holding the feet of her husband,
with eyes full of tears, she said in a sad voice: “In my life I have not asked you for
anything, today I ask you this.”

 –     
(S.) husbands are the ornament of powerless virtuous wives
without husbands they do not shine in the world
you indeed are the husband of my heart’s desire
(D.) I will not let you go alone to the depth of the forest
(K.) He did not succeed in his efforts to console the queen in various ways and
leave her behind. At last the two of them, each clasping one of the two babies
to their chests, got ready to leave their motherland. At that time the king, with
tears in his eyes, addressed the motherland [and] said: “Oh! you, Campaka, the
delighter, my land of birth, which is superior even to heaven, from childhood [I]
played a lot on your green lap, and I have nourished this body eating your fruits
and roots. Mother, I salute you. Today, your beggar son is going for ever to far
lands, leaving you behind.” Having said this, the king and queen
[] (S.) (Jh.)
slowly went
having abandoned the city of Campaka…………………
abandoning all subjects………………………………...…
(D. Jh.) clasping the children to their chest………………………..
(S.) aer the king - followed queen Keśī
(Jh.) moving majestically, her breast flooded with tears.
(K.) Having crossed many difficult mountains, forests and deserts, at last they
arrived at the bank of a mighty river, full of water. Having put the two children
under a fig tree well decorated with dangling creepers
(S.) the king having taken the queen
swam across the river
having brought Keśinī to the other bank and keeping [her there]
he got down into the water again
(Jh.)

he swam in the water of the river
keeping the queen on one bank…………………………………
in order to bring the children……………………………………
beloved like one’s life……………………………………………
Like an elephant.

 –     
(K.) Just when the king was half way across the river, Kaibarttas were passing
in a rowing boat, talking to each other. Having heard the words of the Kaibarttas,
Jayasen thinking that their father was coming, happily said these words:
[] (S.) come quickly, oh father, having swum across the river
calm us down clasping us to your chest
on such a night, on the sand bank of the river,
we are awaiting you because [we] are frightened in [our] heart
(Jh.)
oh father, come
take us quickly……………….
(K.) en the Kaibarttas having heard the call of the children in the middle of
such a quiet forest, were worried and surprised
(S.) having heard the call of the children the two Kaibarttas
then became worried and surprised
whoever is this child calling on the deserted river bank
uttering “come, come, father”, in great confidence
(Jh.)
they went and checked
who [was] this child calling at that place ………………………
(K.) en the Kaibarttas saw Jayasen and Jayadatta on the bank of the river. Having seen the two children, they felt filial love for them. Saying: “Today we have
got two jewels of sons”
(Jh.)
with happy hearts
they took away the two children………………
they put them in the boat……………………...
they took them away in the boat………………
[] (K.) Very soon aer the Kaibarttas had gone away, king Sambhūmitta coming
out of the river could not see [his] two children [and]
(S.) sometimes under the trees sometimes in the water of the river
he searched for them running around
sometimes fainting
sometimes lamenting
sometimes weeping loudly

Hindu caste of fishermen.

 –     
(Jh.) the king weepingly called saying
oh sons come to me
do come oh jewels of my heart
(D. Jh.) not seeing you my heart breaks into pieces
(K.) e king’s heart [was] sad for the disappearance of [his] sons.
(S.) weeping the king said in a choked voice
today having come here I have lost my darlings.
if taking them with me[and] dressed as a beggar
(Jh.) we had wandered in different countries [despite] our begging,
(S.) even then we would have lived happily in this life
tirelessly peacefully clasping my children to our chests
(Jh.)
I would have remained oblivious of my troubles
clasping to my chest my heart’s beloved………………………...…………
having seen the faces of my darlings……………………………..………..
[] (K.) Even aer much searching he failed to find his two sons: the wealth of
his life. e king, his heart heavy with grief, started to swim again in the water of
the river in order to go back to his queen.
(S.)
repeatedly he looked back
if he could see the children …………………………
he could not believe in his heart that he had lost them, alas….……
(K.) At the time when king Sambhūmitta was half way across the river, five hundred merchants were going for trade on a boat. Keśinī was seated in the moonlight, spreading the kingdom of her beauty, quietly, like a stone image. Seeing
Keśinī the merchants asked:
(S.) who are you, beautiful woman, [staying] here all alone
waiting for whom are you sitting here, tell us now
at last the queen said in a low voice
he went to the other bank leaving me here
without any delay he will come back
(Jh.) to this bank to take wretched me, swimming the huge river
(K.) e businessmen said to one another: “We have never seen such a bright,
charming female form in our mortal eyes. As if the full moon of autumn had

 –     
come down to the ground.” e eldest merchant told the queen: “Oh queen you
come on board. I [] shall come and get you now.” Having heard the words of the
merchant, the slim body of the queen trembled like a mādhovī creeper slightly
shaken by the spring breeze
(S.) Keśinī then
weeping
said slowly with modesty
I am a wretched [woman] from my birth full of grief
I tell you do not take me [please]
if my husband comes back here [and] does not see me here
he will be agitated in grief crying loudly
I have one such son who has not yet been weaned
(D.) if you take me who will feed him [and the other one] with
evaporated milk and cream.
(K.) en the queen told the merchants in a pitiable voice:
(D.) to save the suckling baby [I] am begging this
[that] you release me compassionately
without them I
would go crazy
day and night burning with grief for my children
(K.) In spite of the queen’s great begging and persuading, the evil-minded merchant, without listening to her words, forcefully took her on board and cast off.
On the boat,
(S.) the queen, almost crazy, grieving for [her] sons and husband
sometimes stood and sometimes sat, it was difficult to keep her still
her tears [were] flowing incessantly
(D.) even more than the rains showered by the clouds of the months of
Asad and Śrāban
[] (K.) e queen [was] almost crazy grieving for [her] sons and husband.
(D. Jh.) the queen weeping loudly
striking her head with her fist
repeatedly saying: where are my husband and sons,
the cruel merchants
have pulled me on to this boat


Lit. creeper-like.
June & July, monsoon months.

 –     
and are taking me away with alacrity
my heart is breaking [because] I cannot see the faces of my children
and I cannot see my dear husband
[that I should] not see my children and husband
was that written on my destiny?
Is it that I am born to weep?
(Jh.)
who will give milk
to Jayadatta affectionately ………………………………..
with [his] moon like face whom will he call mother ……..
(D. Jh.) whom will he call mother, who will give [him] milk
(K.) Shortly aer Keśinī was abducted by the merchant king Sambhū, getting out
of the water, went to that tree where he had le the queen [and] saw that the
queen was not there. Like the waves of the ocean the king’s grief swelled and then
he cried loudly: “Darling at this time of danger you too have le me, having stuck
the arrow of great grief into my heart.”
[] (S.) the king called pitifully, oh darling,
where have you gone, come back here quickly
[but] he did not get any sound from the queen
(Jh.) he cried out flooding his chest with his tears
in the first place, the grief for the children le me
feeling wretched, [and now] not finding you here, my mind is trembling.
(Jh.)
come back quickly, darling
wherever you have gone…………………………
give peace to me, the unhappy one………………
(K.) e king, overcome by grief for the queen, addressed big and small rivers,
trees, whatever he saw in front of him, asking.
(S.) pitifully weeping
addressing [them] he asked
mountain, river, branches, trees
sky, wind,
gods and demons
creepers, animals and birds
following which path
would I meet my wife and sons
please tell me

 –     
deprived of them
I shall die
how shall I live
(S.) where shall I go, what shall I do I can’t think any more
(D. Jh.) going where [can] I cool down this body which is scorched by grief
[] (K.) e king not being able to bear the burden of grief in his heart, started to
call death: “Oh death, where are you? Gobble me up. Oh sun, moon, lightening,
falling out of your orbit
(S.)
destroy me the unlucky one
I beseech you meekly and wretchedly …………………………
(D. Jh.) I cannot bear my sorrow any more ……………………………..
(S.) alas, Sambhūmitta almost mad in his sorrow
ran aimlessly like a deer struck by lightening.
Wandering through many towns and forests, at last
he arrived in the country of Taksaśila
.
(Jh.)
he arrived
with an exhausted body and without food …………..
wandering through many city and forests, the king ………
(K.) e king entered a flower garden of Taksaśila
and covering all his body with
.
a piece of cloth slept on a piece of rock. At that time, the king of Taksaśila
had
.
died, and since he did not have any children, the royal throne was empty. e
ministers considering that the royal throne should not remain empty, let go the
flower chariot.
[] (S.) the very beautiful chariot moves slowly
behind it followed hundreds of men
dancing girls danced to the beat of the drum
male and female singers sang clapping to the beat.
(Jh.)
oh you please ululate
oh girls, in a sweet voice …………………
(S.) in that garden in which Sambhūmitta was sleeping
there entered the flower chariot.
(Jh.)
[it] circumambulated him
[when] the flower chariot for the seventh time ………………...……

 –     
(S.) then the priest
removing the cloth
inspected the soles of [his] feet
(Jh.)
he saw royal marks
on the soles of the feet of king Sambhūmitta ………………….
(K.) en the priest told everybody: “is person sleeping on the stone [is] worthy
to be the king of Taksaśila.
Let us today consecrate him as king in this garden.”
.
en everybody with delighted heart repeatedly called king Sambhū:
[] (S.) (Jh.)
oh master, wake up
having shaken off [your] sleep, get on the chariot ……………….…
(D. Jh.) ....……………………………………………………………………
(K.) When king Sambhū woke up from his sleep, he asked: “Why did you call
[me]? en everybody said to him:
(S.)
we want to make you king
of the kingdom of Taksaśila
……………………………
.
(K) en king Sambhū having concealed his sadness with great difficulty, asked
them in a sweet voice: “Why indeed should you invite this beggar of the road
to be your king. Is there no king in this kingdom?” en the subjects said:
(S.) there was a king, who possessed all good qualities
he used to protect all his subjects with love
[but] he has gone to the realm of death
(D. Jh.) he has nobody in this world, no wife, daughter or son
(S.) for this reason, we the people [of this country], all got together,
now we shall consecrate you as our king
(Jh.)
get on the chariot, our master!
do not delay any more …………………………….
[] (K.) King Sambhū unable to ignore their persuasion, finally got on the chariot.
(S.)

slowly slowly went the chariot
taking king Sambhū on its bosom ..…………………………
Pauper.

 –     
oh “hail the king”
young and old ………………. collectively
oh all women ululate () …………….… collectively
(K.) King Sambhū having taken the throne of Taksaśila
ruled the kingdom effi.
ciently. Whenever he recollected his dear children, he felt as if a hundred thousand scorpions stung his heart [and] unable to endure the sharp pain he used to
say in a choked voice:
(S.) without my dear children it is dark [as] night
useless are the palace and gems like diamond and pearl
(D. Jh.) if I hold someone else’s child, the fire of my mind burns doubly
what is this condition I have reached in this world.
was it written on my forehead [that I should] never see [my] wife and
children?
how can I put out the fire of my mind?
(K.) Oh, my audience, here I postpone the story of Sambhūmitta. Let’s go and see
again how Jayasen and Jayadatta are doing in the house of the fishermen.
[] (S.) the fishermen looked aer the children with great care
[they] were growing day by day like the moon of the bright fortnight
(Jh.)
in their house kept on growing
the children in the house of the fishermen ……………………………
[the children] wanted to stay in a clean and nice place……………....
they hated dirtiness, ugliness and mud ……………………………...
(Jh.)
the fishermen pondered
having seen the nature of the children ……………………………
(K.) Finally the fishermen took the pair of boys and presented them to the king of
Taksaśila.
.
(S.) the king[too] brought up the boys like his own sons
[but] at this time father and sons did not know each other
(K.) e eldest trader abducted the queen. en, talking to her in an elaborate
manner, he proposed marriage to her. But the queen in disgust and embarrassment bent her head like a lajjāratī creeper and refused this unpleasant proposal.
en the trader threatened her in many ways and also tempted her with many
promises. e queen was not distracted even with that and said:

 –     
(Daśadhuśī)
(S.) whom, earlier, as my husband
I honoured in this world
as my god and worshipped him
[he was like] the tree of hope for the hopeless, he was my great teacher
without him this world is dark
[] (S.) [I,] this helpless one, selling the wealth of my chastity
shall never be your sexual partner
even if [you] kill me stabbing me with a weapon
(D. Jh.) I cannot ever accept you as my husband
(K.) e tradesman, despite being disappointed, when going abroad for trading,
used to take the queen [with him] in order to be able to fulfil [his] lust. Whenever
he, his heart contaminated with lust, tried to touch the queen, the queen would
 would
take refuge in the Buddha’s qualities and meditating on the śīlanusmrti
.
speak thus:
(S.) oh Buddha friend of the poor save this wretched one
I have fallen into danger and I call you again and again
your feet are indeed
the strength of women
but for you there is nobody in this life for this wretched one
whenever the queen would call the Buddha in a pathetic voice
the wicked tradesman could not touch her body
(Jh.)
like burning fire
then the queen’s body would become hot ………………
the tradesman kept on thinking
how strange is this woman …………………………………..
(D. Jh.) I cannot understand, how strange is this woman
[] (K.) Once the tradesman anchored the boat at the royal pier of Taksaśila.
.
Having le the queen in the boat, taking some attractive objects he made a gi
to king Sambhū. en the king told the tradesman: Mr. Tradesman tonight here
there will be a theatrical performance. You shall depart aer seeing it. en the
tradesman respectfully told him: “Oh great king, I le my wife in the boat.”

See Visuddhimagga VII, -.

 –     
(S.) If I stay here who will protect her?
[I] cannot stay, therefore please excuse me, master
king Sambhūmitta sent Jayasen [and] Jayadatta
to the river bank
he sent them
both the boys to the river bank
(S.) at that time Jayadatta asked
kindly brother give me an account of [our] antecedents
in this world who are our mother and father
and how did we get into the house of the fishermen
(Jh.)
kindly tell me brother
who are our mother and father ………………...
(D.) explain to me, where is our birth place
[] (K.) Meanwhile, in the boat, the queen, grief-stricken for her sons, having
heard those heart-rending words of Jayadatta, [felt] as if every string of the harp
of her heart was tingling. She thought: “is late in the night, on the bank of the
river, why do these two boys chat like this? Are they too like my children Jayasen
and Jayadatta, born unfortunate? Let me see what more they say.”
(S.) standing on the boat
the queen listened to the boys’ conversation
carefully, with attention
then Jayasen said
listen, oh dear brother
the fire of grief arises in my heart
(S.) we were born in a royal family, we are princes
we, wretched ones, lost our mother and father at the bank of a river
(J.)
you were very young
(D. Jh.) I tell you my dear brother …………………………
(S.) listen, the city of Campaka is our birth place
Sambhūmitta is our father, Keśinī our mother
[] (K.) Hearing the chat of Jayasen and Jayadatta the queen understood that
those two boys were indeed none but her own sons Jayasen and Jayadatta
As a she-cobra who has lost her crest jewel becomes impatient when she finds
it back, the queen having got her sons, the lost jewels, could no more keep quiet.

 –     
Like a mad woman she got out of the boat [and exclaimed:] alas my son Jayasen
alas my son Jayadatta, here I have arrived, your beggar mother
(S.) having become agitated with grief, crying loudly
embracing and holding the two boys to her chest
(Jh.)
the queen kept on crying incessantly
holding the darlings to her chest ………………………………..
getting back her jewels of sons ………………………………...
(D. Jh.) the boys having heard the words of Keśinī understood that
this wretched woman is our mother
[then,] crying pitifully “mama” they held the queen’s feet and wept
at that time their ocean of grief overflowed
(Jh.)
mama ma
hold us against your chest ………………
our bodies are paralysed ………………..
where have you been so long
(D. Jh.) holding the darlings to her chest the queen cries loudly
[] (K.) e queen embracing the two darlings of her heart wept copiously. en
a man having seen this occurrence went to the merchant and told [him]. Like a
fire fuelled with ghee, the anger of the merchant flared up. He went to the king
and said: “King, I have come to know that those guards you sent are harassing
her [my wife].” e king as soon as he heard these words of the businessman,
became angry and roared like a lion and having called the executioner said: “Oh
executioner, take the two boys without delay from the river bank to the execution
ground, [and] execute [them], so that I need not see their sinful faces.” en the
executioner, getting the royal command,
(S.) sword in hand, eyes red, running, repaired there
gnashing [his] teeth, [looking] like the messenger of death,
the cruel executioner, tied the boys quickly
with a sharp cord. By the rubbing [of the cord]
blood oozed from the tied places.
we cannot endure the pain, they said crying
we cannot endure
oh mother, such pain ……………………

 –     
blood is falling in streams ……………..
(D. Jh.) executioner, tell us quickly why did you bind us
[] (K.) e cruel-hearted executioner having heard the words of the two boys
threatening and shouting said: “Why did I bind you? e answer to it would
be giving this punch, this kick and this slap.” Having said that, he took them to
the execution ground [while] punching and kicking [them] beyond the boys’ endurance, greatly hurting the bodies of the boys. At that time, filling the horizon
with their heart-piercingly sad lamentation, they said:
(S.) our limbs are paralysed, we cannot li our feet
leaving our unfortunate mother we are going to the cremation ground
deprived of us she will be as if unconscious
her eyes will shed a flood of tears, our hearts are bursting [now]
(Jh.)
we are going we are going
leaving our helpless mother ……………………………………
for the last time in our lives we go to the execution ground ……
having seen the suffering of the sons
the queen was crying with great sorrow ………………………………….
why does my death not come
so that I do not see this grief …………………………………
before I witness the bereavement of my sons ………………………
was this in my destiny
that I should burn in the fire of grief ………………………
[] she prostrated herself on the ground shouting: “Children, children”
as a banana tree falls on the ground in a great storm
(Jh.)
rolling about she wept
beating her chest ……………………………
in disarray the queen ……………………….
(K.) While on the way, a pundit heard the story of the two boys [and] his heart
[was] afflicted, [so] he went to the king [and] said: “King, before you condemned
to death these two slave boys today, you should have judged whether they were
really guilty or not. Oh king, finding guilt without investigation is not proper
justice.”

 –     
(S.) if the king of the kingdom ever becomes a tyrant
the subjects die burning from the demerit of the king
(Jh.)
whether bad or good luck
happen in the kingdom …………………………
according to the nature of the king the subjects are happy or
unhappy
(K.) Having heard the good advice of the pundit, the king said: “Respectable pundit, as the dark night becomes lighted by the clear and white moonlight of the full
moon, having heard your rational words I can understand now that I committed
a great mistake in not investigating them.” en the king called a messenger [and]
said: “Oh messenger, without delay go to the cremation ground and fetch the two
boys.”
e executioner put the two boys on the ground like helpless baby fawns, pulling
the sword out of its scabbard he was about to kill them. e messenger saw that
scene from a distance from the execution ground [and] rising his voice shouted:
(S.)
stop, stop, oh executioner!
do not slay now the boys ………………………
I have orders
I have to take them to the king ……………
(D. Jh.) having rescued the boys [he] took [them] quickly to the king’s presence
then the king
asked
asked them gently
tell me, oh servants,
tell me quickly all the full account clearly
[] (Jh.)
what have you done
with the tradesman’s wife …………………
in the dead of the night ……………………
(D.) leaving aside fear and embarrassment, tell me clearly
(D. Jh) hearing the king’s speech
weeping in great grief
the boys said
she is not the wife of the tradesman she is our mother
oh king, please listen to us
(Jh.)
please, king. listen to our words
she is our mother ……………………………………

 –     
(D.) we, the wretched ones, saw our mother we tell you this quickly
(K.) e king was surprised to hear the account of the boys and said: “Dear boys,
you are the sons of the fishermen, how can you introduce the wife of the tradesman
as your mother?” en the boys, clasping their bloody palms together, said in a
tormented voice:
(S.) the fishermen are not our parents, please listen
we shall explain to you our account
we were born in a royal family, we are princes
(Jh.) we poor ones lost our father and mother on the bank of a river
[] (S.) Sambhūmitta is our father Keśinī is our mother
the prosperous city of Campaka is our motherland
(Jh.)
Do listen, oh king!
our mother is in the boat ………………
(D.) Our sad mother, oh king, is in the boat
(K.) Having heard the words of Jayasen and Jayadatta the king understood that
those two boys were none but his beloved Jayasen and Jayadatta [and] his whole
face lit up in ecstatic happiness like the sky suddenly free of clouds. en he rose
from the golden seat and said: “My boys, I am your wretched father Sambhūmitta.”
Having said this,
(S.) the king quickly embraced them
again and again [he] clasped them to his chest [and] kissed them
(Jh.)
tears of joy flowed down
flooding his cheeks …………………………
from both the king’s eyes ………………….
(D.) what happiness, what heavenly happiness, [brings] in this world the
face [of one’s] son
(S.) the boys then
weeping
said in a distressed voice
ever wretched
our mother
is, oh father, [still] in the boat.

 –     
[] (K.) Oh father, as a wild doe caught in the hunter’s net suffers much torment at the hands of the hunter, in the same way the tradesman having bound
our mother with iron fetters is inflicting on her unbearable tortures in the boat.
(J.)
Oh father we beseech you
falling at your feet ……………………………
(D.) let us go father to the river bank to fetch our mother.
(K.) e great king Sambhūmitta, having heard from the words of his sons that
news of his dearest [wife] became mad with joy and having gone to the river bank
told the tradesman: “Oh brother tradesman, that woman who is in your boat is
my wife. One day in the dead of night, due to an evil turn of fate I lost her on
the bank of a river. Be compassionate my brother, please return [to me my] life
companion. e tradesman having heard such words from the king, said: “Oh
king I return her, you take her along.” en
(S.) the king climbed on the boat
Keśinī by her name
(D. Jh.)
he called in a very sad voice
hearing the words of [her] dear husband
the queen went crazy
[and] cried out in a loud voice
(Jh.)
the queen swooned
having fallen at the feet of the king ……………………
(D.) seeing [her] husband aer such a long time the queen swooned.
[] (S.) when she gained consciousness, the chaste wife
the gem of mankind [Sambhūmitta] raised her in great love and care and said
(Jh.)
oh dear, do not cry
let’s go to the royal palace now ………………
our sons are with us …………………………..
(D.) let’s go to the royal palace now, with our sons
(S.) taking his sons and wife the king went to the royal palace
various auspicious instruments were played to an extremely sweet tune
king Sambhūmitta
was intoxicated with happiness
all the subjects were rejoicing
in the royal palace of Taksaśila
there started a great celebration
.

Bazaar=market=festivity.

 –     
(Jh.)
there started a great celebration
in the kingdom of Taksaśila
…………………………………
.
the king and queen were reunited …………………………..
mother and sons were reunited ……………………………..
(D. Jh.) mother and sons were reunited, there started a great celebration
(K.) It was mentioned in the Jātaka [that] in their preceding lives Jayasen and Jayadatta were born as the sons of king Sambhūmitta’s wife, queen Keśinī. In that life,
at the queen’s importuning, king Sambhūmitta brought two young chicks from
the top of a tree for the entertainment of the two boys. Returning to the nest,
the couple of talking birds [] were overwhelmed with the pain [caused] by the
separation [from their chicks] due to the disappearance of the two chicks. When
they stopped playing, king Sambhūmitta put back the two chicks in the right
place. e parrot and mynah were very delighted to get back the two chicks. Because of the bad deeds of his previous life king Sambhūmitta lost his own two sons
and wife in this life and had to suffer the endless pain of separation before getting
them back again because he stole the chicks [and] caused unbearable pain, [even
though] he returned them again.
(S.) in this earthly life, whatever one does
one has to accept a similar result.
Sambhūmitta’s ballad has now come to an end
(Jh.) Oh you, assembled good people, shout the name of the Buddha in love and
bliss
the end
shout the name of the Buddha and hail him
raising your arms in the ecstasy of loving bliss …………………………..
all your sufferings will go away ………………………………………….
[I] Oh you, assembled friends, recognise this
(my) wealth of Buddha Dhamma and Sangha (twice)
the triple gem appeared on this earth in order to save beings by giving [them] the
mantra of non-violence
we give up the worship of illusory things when we worship the Arahant
[there is no one] but that compassionate one to get across the ocean of life

Jayasen and Jayadatta in their preceding life.

 –     
give up jealousy, abuse, quarrelling and embrace each other
take on your body the bond of unity, accepting the tendency of the current time
give up the stubbornness of aristocracy, give up the glory of monastic nikāya
with concentrated mind meditate on loving kindness
in order to practise the means to the life beyond, you should communally take
up initiation [, i.e.:] on the two seventh days in the month and on the new
moon and full moon days
those who are householders either in the morning or in the evening should take
the five precepts
otherwise life would pass fruitlessly, and how shall you be liberated?
all around there will be prosperity, the glory of the nation and Dharma will increase
this is the pleading of poor Baskar at the feet of the nation
[II] I have spent my time meditating on you in this world
………………………………………………………
oh Dharma - my heart is trembling seeing the darkness [and] the days finishing
the cuckoo started calling
I kept waiting hoping that [you] would appear one day
day aer day all my days have passed (ditto)
oh Dharma - I have made the abuse of relatives and friends my garland
only because I shall get you
if you appear everybody will know [you] as the compassionate one
let the drum sound filling up the world (twice)
oh Dharma - non-violence is the greatest Dharma which is the essence of your
religion
[by it] people get liberated
Baskar says that when your are one’s navigator there is nothing to worry about
one gets encouraged by getting that sign.
[III] We get destroyed because we lack the attitude of friendship, oh friend, beware
of Buddhist people
(oh friends) the leaders that we follow quarrel with each other [and] we are ashamed
when we hear the rumour

is is a clear appeal for the unity of the Bangladeshi Sangha.
Lit. get the mantra.

[the dark and bright fortnight].


 –     
in many books and pamphlets they make negative propaganda about different
races
oh friends, is this the way to bring development?
(oh friends,) being born Buddhist, [we] have adopted non-Buddhist customs
each of us lives blinded by selfishness
there are only a handful of Buddhist people, we do not understand the rules of
advancement
oh friend, we destroy various [Buddhist] institutions
(oh friends,) keeping together, let’s be intoxicated by the music of unity
there is no deliverance without this idea
get rid of jealousy and abuse, take upon yourselves the tendency of the present
time
keep your meditation on loving kindness in the binding of unity
(oh friends,) give up the differences of lineage [and] nikāya, improve your own
religion
please listen, oh you, the whole Buddhist public.
this is the prayer of poor Baskar, do not keep quiet when you know the truth.
the fire [of destruction] has caught the corner of our house.
[IV] worship the divine Buddha, utter the word of the divine Buddha, take the
name of the divine Buddha
giving up attachment to possessions avoiding great slumber (slumber of delusion)
he is the practitioner of salvation
oh you, play on the mrdanga
and drum and utter Buddha[’s name] with blissful
.
love
sing the qualities of the Buddha with ecstasy (three times), remember it again
let’s go to the other side of the river of life
o you black bee sing day and night the qualities of the Buddha, the gem of the
lineage of Sakya
he who floats on the nectar of the name of the Buddha attains salvation
wake up, wake up, Buddhists of Bengal ! Why are you sleeping?
China, Ceylon and Japan are awake, Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan are awake, Burma,
ailand push forward, they are intoxicated by the sixth Council
within the time of two and a half thousand years the Buddhist religion will rise
pervading the hearth with the mantra of non-violence, it will rise again

See note .

 –     
the speech of the great man is about to come, alas! Why are we immersed in
the delusion of blindness selfishness, quarrel internally [and hence our] society is
becoming as if dead every day?
wiping away the black smear of violence, animosity and duality, oh you, forget all
group quarrels.
swinging on the swing of unity holding the banner of non-violence, oh you, forget
all group quarrels.
this is the appeal of poor Bhaskar:
engage your mind in meditation on compassion
.
embracing each other with the tune of unity, dedicate your life ........
[V] say Buddha, say Dharma - oh [my] mind once say Sangha
saying Buddha, Buddha, Buddha let’s go to the [far] bank of the river of
life
to cross the ocean of life - call Buddha the helmsman
indeed the Buddha [is] food for hunger - indeed the Buddha is water for thirst
the Buddha is in water, Buddha is in land, the Buddha is in the moon, the
Buddha is in the sun
the Buddha is in fire, the Buddha is in wind - oh you people heartily salute
the Buddha
(D. Jh.)
there is no other friend
ei, without the unique Buddha …………………
ei, without the unique Dharma……………………
ei, without the unique Sangha……………………
Wake and arise young Buddhists, society is going to pieces (twice)
should the glorious boat of the Tathāgata sink into deep darkness?
the aristocratic chiefs [of the villages] are not conducting themselves according to
laws, being deluded by illusion, they wield the stick in every house (twice)
the religion of the nation is falling apart; teach [them] the essence [of religion];
make your birth useful, and fence around your own religion
the leaders who are educated - have completely lost their personality in quarrels
their hearts are full of delusion, being blind with selfishness they destroy society.
this is poor Bhaskar’s appeal to the Bengali Buddhist students, please for them
explain the modern development of non-violence and loving friendship.

Which separates this world from the other.
Use of “ocean” and “river” with same meaning. In Chittagong coastal area the ocean is called
boronadi or bairernadi, meaning the river of outside.


 –     
[VI] oh you my mind, you didn’t practise worship and devotion
(Jh.) you did not recognise who is the philosophers’ jewel which is the treasure of
religious practice
listen, my mind, listen to my words, keep your mind fixed on the Venerable Buddha (alas my poor mind)
if you say Buddha Dharma and Sangha, there will be no fear from sin, oh my mind
birth, old age and the disease of being, will not exist
repeat the name of the guru who has given you that mantra (twice)
if you can call him in the proper manner you will realise him inside your heart
(twice)
in fact you don’t know how to call properly
where is your country house, where is your house, where do you conduct your
living (twice)
Sariputta and Moggallana were the ones who became the Lord’s disciples
tell me indeed in which age, to which pupillary lineage you belong
(Jh.) ose who will engage in killing and stealing
as a result of their misconduct will go to hell
whoever will lie or drink alcohol
the goddess of good luck will leave him day by day
your own friends revealed that by the performance of sīla one goes to
heaven
the virtuous people are inviting you, go and rejoice in their company
love the company of the virtuous, show them your respect by bowing your
head
entwine their feet with the creeper of your devotion.
[VII] not understanding the nature of the river (oh my mind) don’t dive in that
river
the unbounded expanse of the river - do not swim
if you dive in you will not be able to find the other side.
I went to the bank of the river - oh! how many people are deluded
they are suffering only watching the waves of the river
the benign teacher Venerable Gautama is on the other side
(oh my mind) one can cross if one has devotion, there is no need for money
say Buddha Dharma and Sangha, remember the name of the triple jewel
then, my mind, you can go

 –     
the meritorious people can reach the other bank of the river
the sinner cannot go - sharks and crocodiles will not leave them alone
make the boat of your body balanced, find the boatman, your mind
then you will be able to go
take refuge in the eight precepts and the five precepts
and follow every day calmly the meditation on loving kindness and
compassion and so on
there are six oarsmen in the boat of your body they always try to cheat you
oh my silly mind, why are you not in control?
poor and humble Binay says: get hold of the feet of the teacher
without a guru you cannot go to the far bank of the ocean of life
[VIII] Sambhūmitta is our father, Keśinī is our mother
we have explained everything, oh you, our beloved king
(the city of Campaka was our motherland)
Campaka city was our motherland
we le the city due to our bad karma
Sambhūmitta is our father
Keśinī is our mother ……………………………
as we have disclosed ……………………………
oh you Buddha friend of the poor people, save this unlucky one
I have encountered danger - I call you again and again
the power of the destitute
comes from your feet
there is nobody besides you - in this world for the destitute
when you will call Buddha, in a helpless pitiable voice
please appear in front of me once
save me this luckless one
I call you again and again
I am in danger
besides you there is no rescuer
I call you holding your feet
like little children
I call you the incarnation of Buddha

An Early Korean Version of the Buddha’s Biography
Sem Vermeersch
[email protected]
e Sŏkka Yŏrae haengjŏk song (Ode on the acts of the Tathāgata Śākyamuni) was written by the Korean Ch’ŏnt’ae (Ch. Tiantai) monk Mugi in
. It is a biography of the Buddha in verse form, which in character
somewhat resembles a seventh-century biography by the Chinese official
Wang Bo. Both are based on Chinese renditions of the Buddha’s life story,
but while Wang’s work is a terse adaptation tailored to the tastes of a literati
audience, in Mugi’s work the terse verse format functions as a framework
to contain extensive commentaries. e commentaries discuss Tiantai doctrinal points as well as issues that confronted both lay and monastic practitioners of the time. Mugi’s foremost concern seems to have been to use
the life of the Buddha as an inspiration to counter lax interpretations of the
precepts among his fellow monks and inspire them to have more respect for
lay donors.
Introduction
Scholarship on the biography of the Buddha has traditionally focused on discovering the real person behind the myths, and as such many studies dealing with the
Buddha’s life have been based almost exclusively on the earliest Indian sources.
Although the past two decades or so have witnessed a move away from the obsession with Buddhist origins, the vast body of Chinese texts that describe the life of
Śākyamuni has been virtually ignored following the pioneering work of Samuel
Beal in the late nineteenth century. In this paper, I intend to use a fourteenthcentury Korean work – the Sŏkka Yŏrae haengjŏk song (Ode on the acts of the
Tathāgata Śākyamuni) by Mugi – as a starting point to reflect on the role of the
.  (): –. ©  Sem Vermeersch
 –       ’ 
Buddha’s life story in the religious life of medieval Korea. e work is derived
from earlier Chinese biographies, and will allow us to see how the biography was
understood, how it developed, and how it appealed to religious sensibilities in
Koryŏ Korea (-). About a century aer it was composed, one of the first
works to be written in the newly created Korean alphabet was a biography of the
Buddha called Sŏkpo sangjŏl 釋譜詳節 (Detailed record of the Buddha’s life, ),
followed by a poetic version, the Wŏrin ch’ŏngang chi kok 月印千江之曲 (Songs
of [the Buddha’s] moon reflected in a thousand rivers, ; see Olof). Although
better known, these works have not been amply studied either. To understand
the Korean contribution to the development of the biography, we would need a
systematic comparison between the Sŏkka Yŏrae haengjŏk song and Chinese biographies on the one hand, and later Korean biographies on the other. Given the
present state of scholarship this is not yet feasible; thus this paper will limit itself
to situating the work in the long tradition of writing the life story of the Buddha
and to teasing out aspects of its religious agenda.
To provide some context, I will first try to sketch the history and development
of the biography of the Buddha as a genre of Buddhist literature, to show Mugi’s
indebtedness to the Chinese redactions of this genre. Next, I will summarize all
our current knowledge about Mugi and his work; and finally, I will try to assess the
significance of the sectarian and other religious agendas that are clearly present
in this work.
Development of the biography in East Asia
Ironically, despite the obvious importance of the figure of Śākyamuni in the Buddhist religion, Western scholars have paid comparatively little attention to his biographies. More precisely, they have paid little attention to the religious function
of his biography. Instead, since the end of the th century, the focus has been almost entirely on recovering the “real Siddhartha,” the historical figure behind the
myths; as a result, most biographies composed in Asia over the past two millennia
were rejected out of hand as hagiography, and instead scholars focused on finding
the most reliable elements in the earliest textual strata, the Pali texts. With the realization that this representation of Buddhism is a form of “protestant Buddhism”
spawned in the context of colonialism, the study of Buddhism has undergone a
sea change in recent decades, but with as yet comparatively little attention to the
traditional representation of the Buddha’s life; an exception is John Powers’ recent
A Bull of a Man, but for studies of the East Asian tradition, the pickings are still

 –       ’ 
meager. Following the pioneering translations of Samuel Beal, there are only the
abridged translation of an early Chinese version by Patricia Eichenbaum Karetzky
and a few partial studies, most of them focusing, however, on the art-historical
aspects of the story (Lesbre, Murray).
e best starting point for an overview of the complex biographical tradition
is still Lamotte’s treatment of the “deified Buddha”. Despite sharing his contemporaries’ skepticism regarding the value of the “legend”, at least he takes the material
seriously. Lamotte discerns five stages in the development of this legend (Lamotte
, ):
.
.
.
.
.
biographical fragments found in sūtras
biographical fragments found in Vinayas
autonomous but incomplete “lives”
complete lives of the Buddha
e Sinhalese compilations
One can of course argue about the agenda of this scheme, which supposes a gradual progression towards more sophisticated (and more mythologizing) biographies, but it remains a useful starting point. What interests me for the purposes
of this article is especially sections  and ; what he terms “incomplete” biographies are those that focus only on part of the Buddha’s career, typically from birth
to enlightenment (excluding his ministry and death). Although a few Sanskrit
texts remain, notably the Buddhacarita, Lalitavistara and Mahāvastu, the bulk
of the material is in Chinese; Volumes  and  of the Taishō edition of the East
Asian canon contain numerous biographical scriptures, the oldest one translated
in  . How closely these texts follow Indian source texts is not clear, though
comparison with the remaining Sanskrit texts shows a high degree of faithfulness.
But there is another category of texts, not discussed by Lamotte, that it is also
very useful to consider: completely new renditions made in China. From the
sixth century onwards, a number of texts appear that were composed by Chinese
monks:
. Shijia pu 釋迦譜 (Genealogy of the Śākyas), T ; K ; Compiled by
Sengyou (-) of the Liang (-)

As far as I am aware, no studies have yet been made of these texts; Arthur Link wrote a very
interesting article on Sengyou’s life and works, yet among his works focuses almost exclusively on
the Chu sanzang jing, devoting only a few lines to the Shijia pu (Link, ). e work is also briefly
mentioned in Sonya Lee’s Surviving Nirvana (Lee -).

 –       ’ 
. Shijia shipu 釋迦氏譜 (Clan genealogy of the Śākyas), T ; K ; Compiled either by Sengyou of the Liang or [more likely] by Daoxuan (-)
of the Tang in 
. Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志 (Gazetteer of the Śākyas), T ; K ; Compiled by Daoxuan of the Tang in .
Obviously these were compiled because it was felt that the Indian biographies
lacked something, so it can be surmised that these biographies address specifically Chinese concerns: indeed, one finds that they introduce elements of Chinese Buddhist tradition, such as the dating of the Buddha’s life according to events
described in Chinese records. e first two, as can be seen from the titles, are essentially “genealogies,” studies of the Buddha’s ancestors, both historically – from
the first ancestor to his father – and mythically/spiritually, i.e., his relation to other
Buddhas and the succession to his teachings by his disciples. An interesting aspect of these works is that they were written by monks with a keen interest in the
vinaya.
In what appears to be a next step, these sinicized biographies were popularized
(or rewritten for a different audience); the earliest such example I have found is
Wang Bo’s Shijia rulai chengdao yinghua shiji ji 釋迦如來成道[應化事蹟]記
(Record of the Tathāgata Śākyamuni’s enlightenment (and factual accounts of his
miraculous transformation)). As the title indicates, it is also a short biography of
the Buddha, in  characters (Lesbre, ). Not much can be ascertained about
the author or the text. e meager biographical details about Wang Bo 王勃 reveal
that he was a very talented literatus who fell afoul of Emperor Gaozong (r. ) aer writing a satirical piece about the princes, and died early, aged  or
. His exact relation to Buddhism is not clear, but like many Tang scholars he
may well have been a Buddhist in private. In any case, he wrote several pieces for
Buddhist monasteries, mainly in Sichuan. According to one tradition, this record

Information based on Lancaster and Park. T stands for the Taishō Tripitaka compiled in Japan
in the early twentieth century, and K for the Tripitaka Koreana, compiled in -.

For example, Daoxuan works the persecution of Buddhism in China into his account to illustrate the idea that the dharma was in its last phase. See Chen, . (citing T. ..c).

See the biographies collected in Lin Hetian, -; according to the biographical essay by
He Lintian in the preface, Wang’s dates are -.

Mainly in the Zizhou and Yizhou circuits. e connection with Sichuan is not clear, but the
following can be gleaned:
() According to Chen Huaiyu, p.  n. :
is footnote deals with Wang Bo’s inscriptions for monasteries, notably two in Sichuan; e.g.

 –       ’ 
of the Buddha’s life was composed for the Lingguang temple 靈光寺 when he was
military attaché in Guozhou – it was carved on stone in the temple compound.
However, this record is full of inconsistencies and cannot be taken at face value
(He Lintian, ,  n. ). Also, it is very different in nature from the pieces he
wrote for other temples.
Even though the piece’s origin is not clear (e.g. whether it was commissioned
or whether he wrote it for himself), there is some evidence about how it gained
traction. In one edition of this text, very detailed annotations are added by the
monk Daocheng 道誠. e text by Wang Bo is an extremely terse overview of
the Buddha’s career; some events are described merely by the name of the locality
where they took place. erefore, Daocheng’s comments (he lived ca. ), are
very useful in helping to decipher Wang Bo’s record.
Wang Bo’s record together with Daocheng’s commentary ultimately contributed to one of the most influential Chinese biographies of the Buddha, the Shishi
yuanliu 釋氏源流 (e origins and development of the Śākyas). is was apparently the work of a monk called Baocheng 寶成, originally from the Ningbo region and working at the Baoen-si in Nanjing around , when the work was
published. All this can be gleaned from a short colophon found at the end of
the first part of this edition (Ch’oe); no other information is available about this
monk or his work. However, it can probably be explained against the background
of the rapidly developing publishing world in this part of China; around the same
time, illustrated books about Confucius’ life appeared (Murray), so that there was
clearly a demand for didactic, comprehensive works that could be read by a wider
audience. e connection with Wang Bo’s record is clear both from the fact that
it is reprinted in editions of the Shishi yuanliu, and from the fact that the latter
uses many phrases from Daocheng’s commentary.
But the main feature of the Shishi yuanliu is that it neatly divides the narrative
into  sections, with illustrations, each of a key event; the text consists mainly of
citations from the earliest biographic scriptures. In a second edition of the text in
 the material is expanded to  sections: roughly half deal with the Buddha’s
life, and the other half with key people and events in the later history of Buddhism,
“Yizhou Mianzhuxian Wudushan Jinghi [sic; should be Jinghui] si bei,” in Wang Zi’an ji zhu (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe ), -. His dates are given as -.
() Timothy Wai Keung Chan gives some more background but no information on his attitude to
Buddhism (his research does mention Wang Bo’s visit to Sichuan, where he visited some monasteries).

Wang Bo, -. is is most likely based on the Zokuzō edition.

 –       ’ 
mainly in China. is work thus represents the culmination of biographies of
the Buddha in China, preserving the main themes of the life story as developed
from the first “incomplete” biographies in India, but integrating Chinese themes
and expanding the narrative so that Chinese (and even Korean: this work also
includes biographies of the Korean monks Ŭisang (-) and Wŏnhyo ()) Buddhist history is also included. Korean attempts at creating a biography
of the Buddha can best be understood against this sinitic background, but also
show their own creative development.
e earliest Korean biography: author and background
e Sŏkka yŏrae haengjŏk song 釋迦如來行蹟頌 (Ode to the Acts of the Tathāgata
Śākya[muni]) was authored by the Koryŏ monk Mugi 無寄 around . Unfortunately virtually nothing is known about this monk; all the information we have
is to be found in the editions of this work, notably in the supplementary material such as forewords, postscripts and colophons. All editions first of all contain
an introduction (sŏ 序) by the official Yi Suk-ki 李叔琪, a draer of royal correspondence and official of the senior third rank in the Royal Secretariat. is
introduction, dated , has the following to say about the work’s author:
Now Mr. Muk, a person from Mt Sihŭng, whose personal name is
Mugi, is a rustic person not given to ostentation, and this appearance is a reflection of his mind. In his younger days he traveled to
Mt. Tiantai [Korean: Ch’ŏnt’ae], concentrating his energies on vacuity. He personally draed the Acts of Tathāgata, composing it in fivesyllable [couplets], followed by comments.

On the histories of these editions, see Ch’oe Yŏnsik’s article.
No biographical information about him is available: his name does not even appear in the Koryŏsa (History of the Koryŏ dynasty, ). He is known however as the author of three inscriptions,
all dated to the period -s. Two are short epitaphs for other officials, Cho Yŏn-su () and Kim Sŭng-yong (-), most likely composed in the years of their death, and one
is a stele for the Yogacāra monk Misu (state preceptor Chajŏng, -), erected in  at
Pŏpchu-sa. From this we know that Yi Suk-ki must have been regarded as one of the leading literati
in the period -.

Sihŭng 始興: the only locality with this name I could find is a satellite city of Seoul, about 
km. south of the city. But I have not been able to find any information confirming either that there
is a mountain of this name; or that the locality had the same name in Koryŏ.

From the edition in the Han’guk Pulgyo chŏnsŏ (Seoul: Tongguk taehakkyo,), .b-
[hereinaer HPC].


 –       ’ 
is introduction is followed by another introduction, this one by Mugi, who
identifies himself as “Mugi, a Ch’ŏnt’ae scholar in the final [days of the law] from
Puam [hermitage]”. is introduction is dated , which we can take as the
year he finished this work. It is a postscript, however, that contains the most
detailed information and ties together the few snippets from the introductions.
e postscript (pal 跋) was written by the “śramana Ki from Paengnyŏn-sa on
Mandŏk-san, on the eighth of the second month, [].” On Mugi, he writes:
Now the elder Mugi from Puam took refuge with a disciple of the
fourth patriarch of Paengnyŏn-sa, Ch’ŏnch’aek (state preceptor Chinjŏng, ca. -), named Ian ... He tonsured his head and donned
the monastic robes, and took Unmuk 雲默 as his dharma name. He
mastered all the writings of his school, and passed the monastic exam
with the top rank. He gained in reputation as abbot of Kuram [temple], and walked high up the road of fame. One morning [however]
he spat it all out, discarding [fame] like an old shoe. He traveled to famous mountains such as Kŭmgang and Odae-san, and finally arrived
at Sihŭng-san, where he built himself a hermitage to dwell. Till late
he intoned the Lotus sūtra, invoked Amitābha, painted Buddhas and
copied scriptures; this was his daily activity, and thus he spent twenty
years. With his remaining energy he searched through the Buddhist
scriptures and the writings of the patriarchs, and composed his Odes
on the Acts with notes.
us we know that, although mostly identified as Mugi, his monastic name was
actually Unmuk (abbreviated as “Muk” by Yi Suk-ki). Although one author identifies him as a “monk of the Tiantai school, active in the Hangzhou region,” he
was clearly Korean. Possibly he went to China, which was certainly possible in this
era, when Koryŏ was dominated by the Mongol Yuan dynasty, and many people
could travel from Koryŏ to other places in the Yuan empire. Most importantly,
he was part of the Korean Ch’ŏnt’ae school, founded by Ŭich’ŏn (-), but
especially the tradition started by Yose at Mandŏk-san.

HPC .c-.
Lesbre, p. . e confusion probably stems from Yi Sukki’s intro, which says he traveled to
Mt. Tiantai, not too far from Hangzhou; yet the author of this article also claims the introduction
was written in , but I could not find any evidence for such a date. e reference is to the Shijia
rulai xingji song (Dai Nihon zokuzōkyō, - yi --, pp. -), clearly the same text as the one
discussed here.


 –       ’ 
Yose 了 世 (-), also known under his posthumous title Wŏnmyo
kuksa, is especially famous as the founder of the “White Lotus Society” (Paengnyŏn
kyŏlsa 白蓮結社) at Mandŏk-san (near Kangjin, South Chŏlla). Although he had
become a monk in the Korean Ch’ŏnt’ae school, during the turmoil of the Military
Period (-) he seems to have become swept up in Chinul’s reform movement, based on the formation of societies for the practice of prajñā and samādhi,
but mainly under a Sŏn (Zen) umbrella. Aer a while, however, he returned to a
Ch’ŏnt’ae temple, and in , during a retreat in a hermitage at Wŏlch’ul-san, he
had a realization to the effect that only through a profound understanding of the
Tiantai teachings could one get rid of the manifold afflictions (“diseases,” karmic
actions). From then on he started to lay the foundations of a devotional movement based mainly on Tiantai traditions: in  he organized the White Lotus
Society at Mandŏk-san with the help of local lay supporters, and in  another
White Lotus Society at Namwŏn; in  he launched the Samantabhadra ritual
(普賢道場), which was to become the main focus of devotional practice. (Ch’ae
)
It is impossible here to unravel all the aspects of this movement; suffice it
to say that though the name and soteriological framework were derived from
Huiyuan’s famous White Lotus Society, more direct influences were Siming Zhili
(-) and Yongming Yanshou (d. ); the actual Samantabhadra ritual
combined Tiantai theology, Lotus Sūtra devotion, Pure Land incantation, and
confession/ penitence rites. It was continued aer Yose’s death in  by his
disciple Ch’ŏnin (-), and aer his premature death by another disciple, Ch’ŏnch’aek (-?). Ch’ŏnch’aek was known as the fourth patriarch
of Mandŏk-san, and it was through one of his disciples, Ian 而安, that Mugi was
connected to this tradition. However, since we know so little about his life, we
cannot exclude the influences of other traditions, although he was undoubtedly a
committed Ch’ŏnt’ae monk, as will become clear when we look at his work.
Acts of the Buddha
As already described in the introduction of Yi Suk-ki, the Sŏkka yŏrae haengjŏk
song is a narrative poem, interspersed with comments by the author. To be pre
Although we are relatively well informed about Yose, Ch’ŏnin, and Ch’ŏnch’aek, the first, second
and fourth patriarchs, virtually nothing is known about the third patriarch, or about Mugi’s master
Ian. For a brief overview of the problem of the Mandŏk-sa patriarchate, see Hŏ , -.

 –       ’ 
cise, it consists of  verses, and refers to more than  sources (Yi ).
e poem is regularly interrupted by blocks of commentary; since comments (or
notes) usually pick up on a particular theme, these interruptions can also be
interpreted as marking subdivisions of the text, and thus we can divide it into 
separate sections. If we look at the main themes of fascicle  (which deals with
the Buddha’s life), we have the following outline:
Sections -: cosmology; - deal with the creation of the world, and finish with the emphasis on how rare it is for a Buddha to come into this
world
Sections -: e Buddha’s family, his birth
Sections -: death of his mother, prowess in youth
Sections -: four encounters, vow to leave household
Sections -: escape from palace, years of arduous practice
Sections -: enlightenment, beginning of ministry, five periods of teaching, marvelous efficacy of supreme teaching
Sections -: final teachings, nirvāna,
. cremation, distribution of relics, King
Aśoka
Sections -: continuation and future of the teachings
is is the content of fasc. , which deals with the Buddha’s life; fasc.  covers
themes such as the transmission to China, the end-of-dharma timeframe, the
need for meritorious action, pure land teachings, and what constitutes correct
practice for monks.
us it is immediately obvious that the story of the Buddha’s life occupies only
a very small portion of this work: for example, the part from his family to the four
encounters only occupies  verses. is excerpt illustrates how terse the narrative
is:
Seven days aer giving birth,
his mother died and was reborn in Trayastrimśa
. h.
.
His aunt greatly loved the Way,

According to Mugi’s own statement: HPC .b. I counted only  five-character verse
lines; no rhyme seems to be used.

“If in the verses the meaning is not apparent, then I have added a note in the main text below
the verse.” HPC .b.

 –       ’ 
she brought him up without sparing any effort.
At the age of seven his knowledge surpassed that of all men,
and among the various arts there was none he did not master.
en they gathered all the maidens of the Śākya clan,
And chose one among the myriad candidates.
Her name was Yaśodharā,
And she was perfect and peerless in every respect.
But the prince, although betrothed to her,
Had no worldly thoughts whatsoever.
One day he announced to his father the king
at he wanted to see what was outside the four gates.
On the road he saw four kinds of scenes;
ese are life, old age, sickness and death.
While Wang Bo’s Shijia rulai chengdao ji is similarly brief in its treatment of key
events, at least the whole poem is about the Buddha; here only about  verses,
from sections  to , deal exclusively with events in the Buddha’s life, and are
similar to themes found in other biographies. e introduction, on the other
hand, deals with Buddhist cosmology, and aer the enlightenment of the Buddha,
the author basically turns to an extended discussion of the panjiao 判敎 (classification of the doctrines) theory, explaining his ministry through the Chinese
sectarian theory that the Buddha’s ministry developed along five distinct stages
of increasing sophistication, culminating in the Lotus Sūtra, the main text of the
Tiantai/Ch’ŏnt’ae school. us, although sections - deal with the Buddha’s
ministry, they do so through a heavy sectarian lens, focusing on Chinese scholastic concerns rather than an actual reconstruction of this part of the Buddha’s life.
Sections - shi the focus back to the figure of the Buddha for an account of
his final nirvāna.
. e second fascicle starts with a brief account of the history of
Buddhism in China, but soon veers into a discussion of certain points that were

Comparison with Wang Bo’s biographical poem shows very little overlap; the corresponding
section of the Buddha’s life is given as follows:
Sometimes he acted like a child, sometimes he practiced the five bright studies.
As for his training in the martial arts, the arrow pagoda and the arrow well still exist.
As for his penetrating power, the elephant traces and the elephant pit are still there.
He received the pleasure of [carnal] desire for ten years.
Presently he went sightseeing outside the four gates, and took pleasure in [the sight of]
a śrāmanera,
but loathed [the sight of] an old person, a diseased person and a dead body.
.

 –       ’ 
obviously of special interest to Mugi, such as the importance of meritorious actions and correct behavior and practice in the end-of-dharma age.
Most developments that we see here can be said to be further elaborations
on themes already introduced in previous works – for example, the cosmology
part is also present in Daoxuan’s biography of the Buddha, as are elements of
sectarian agendas. ough Mugi provides extensive notes that discuss problems
in the biography, most of these are not original, but fairly standard explanations
of problems such as the long gap between the dates of Rāhula’s conception and
birth. A detailed analysis of the biographical motifs selected and Mugi’s notes
would undoubtedly prove valuable for a study of the development of the Buddha’s biography in East Asia, but this is beyond the scope of this paper. What can
be ascertained from this superficial look at the structure and contents of Mugi’s
work, however, is that obviously he had other concerns besides the mere recounting of the biography. ose other concerns, from Tiantai theology to methods
of practice for lay people, are so prominent that one can wonder why he uses the
biography of the Buddha as a vehicle rather than setting them out in a treatise.
Obviously it was important to convey these through the vehicle of the Buddha’s
life story, but why?
e most obvious place to look for reasons is in Mugi’s own statements regarding his motivations. In his introduction, he emphasizes human beings’ inability
to realize their oneness with the Buddha, and the extreme charity of the Buddha’s
decision to take on a human form to help them realize it. Despite the fact that the
Buddha lived “ years” before his own time, in a place “, leagues” removed from Korea, yet the Buddha’s life still made its impact felt. But the traces
were too faint, and “not having personally listened to the sermons in India …
having been born in the calamitous latter days [of the law], many keep the appearance of a monk yet in conduct go completely against the precepts. us, to
correct these deviations, one has to learn the doctrine and understand the Buddha’s conversions, penetrate to the heart and insides of the Buddha.” Just as a secular person has to know where his parents come from, a follower of the Buddha
has to know all the facts about the Buddha’s life.

Since this was written ca. , Mugi thus supposed the Buddha lived around  . More
conventionally, Chinese and Korean Buddhists of his time held that Buddha was born in the th
year of King Zhao of Zhou ( ). See Zürcher, -.

Paraphrased from the introduction, HPC .c-b.

 –       ’ 
At the end of the work, he takes up this thread again, lamenting his own failings and lashing out at all the abuses perpetrated by fellow monks:
Now as for Mugi, although he dabbles in the monastic vocation, and
proceeds with its practice, his vocation to keep the precepts is deficient, his meditation is deficient… How can [I] not be ashamed before Buddha and Heaven! [However,] Vimalakīrti says, ‘One cannot
save oneself from one’s own disease, but one can save others from
their diseases.’
Despite his surprising self-criticism, this confession seems to be aimed at diverting others’ criticisms, for he insists (somewhat disingenuously) that despite his
own shortcomings, he can still “save” others. In fact, he continues with a stringent castigation of monastic malpractice in his time:
…on the pretext of Buddhist rituals, in groups they descend on villages and households, begging everywhere, but their only desire is to
acquire much; how would they have the thought of benefiting others! When they have amassed for themselves, they indulge together
without degree, and call it ‘managing good things.’ [note:] is is the
karma for becoming a hungry ghost.
In fact, in one edition of this work, the final part is added on in an expanded
version as an “Admonition” (Kyŏngch’aek 警 策), which further underlines the
purpose of this work as a warning to his fellow monks. Two aspects in particular
stand out in this: first, the literal interpretation of the precepts and the emphasis
on retribution (including rebirth in hell), and second, the emphasis on the benefactors, the laity: donations accepted or solicited out of greed are a very serious
breach of morality, which will lead to many evil rebirths.
Of course one cannot reduce the whole work to these themes: as indicated, it
elaborates on Tiantai doctrine, but besides these doctrinal themes it is also a vast
compendium of Buddhist knowledge and lore, elaborating on countless issues
that undoubtedly were important to both monks and laity of the time (and are
still relevant). Yet the recurring theme of upholding the precepts and retribution
is unmistakable, starting with the beginning of the biography, which emphasizes

HPC .c-a.
HPC .a-.

Edition privately owned by Min Yŏnggyu, no date. See HPC .c, note .


 –       ’ 
the rarity of a Buddha coming into the world; elsewhere the difficulty of gaining
a human rebirth is emphasized. e message behind this is clear: don’t squander such rare opportunities through greed and selfishness! Not surprisingly, the
part of the commentary which deals with a section on donations and meritorious
action is the longest.
Conclusion
is paper is based on an as yet superficial reading of the text, not an in-depth
textual analysis. e exact “lineage” for the text should be examined in greater
detail; its basic material is obviously indebted to the Chinese renditions/translations of Indian biographies such as the Buddhacarita, though its indebtedness to
the works by Sengyou and Daoxuan should also be acknowledged. Most of the
research on this work that I am aware of deals with its Ch’ŏnt’ae ideology (Yi ),
its ideology of reconciliation with Sŏn (Yi ), or its relation to the later Han’gŭl
biographies (Sin). Yet apart from its sectarian/scholastic agenda, it clearly has a
deep concern with the precepts that transcends Mugi’s school and seems closer in
spirit to the “Vinaya school” monks Sengyou and Daoxuan, in whose works we
find adumbrations of his favorite themes.
We might also look closer to his environment for inspiration: undoubtedly
the actual corruption of monks in his time may have been a direct cause, though
we should be cautious with stock allegations of corruption. During his time, the
phrase “silk prior, gauze master” circulated to criticize corruption in the procuring of promotion; and pressure was mounting from a gradually reinvigorated
Confucian elite. At the same time, the emphasis on retribution and the use of
the phrase “retribution of good and evil deeds” (善惡業報, HPC .b) also
reminds one of the Sutra on divining the retribution of good an evil actions (Zhancha shan’e yebao jing 占察善惡業報經, T ), a book which was introduced to
Korea shortly aer its creation in the late th century, and was quite influential,
notably in the southwest region of Korea around Kŭmsan-sa, where the key figure
in its practice was the monk Chinp’yo (fl. th century). ough we do not find
the same strong emphasis on expiation in Mugi’s work, which rather emphasizes
virtues such as giving and frugality, yet I think we cannot discount the influence
of the tradition of maintaining the “pure precepts” that was passed on in the area

HPC .c.
HPC b-b. Various kinds of meritorious actions and actors are described in great detail.

And perhaps also the Fozu tongji; see Chŏng.


 –       ’ 
around Kŭmsan-sa in the southwest. Also, it is perhaps no coincidence that
two years before this work was written, in , the Indian monk Zhikong 指
空 (Śūnyādiśya) came to Koryŏ, where one of his most notable legacies was the
conferral of precepts and instruction on upholding them (Hŏ , , -,
Waley).
us this work is much more than a biography of the Buddha; but while using
the biography for its own agenda, it is also important for reminding us of the
perennial inspiration of the Buddha’s life story and its centrality as a call to action
for all believers.
References
In Western languages
Beal, Samuel. . Fo-Sho–Hing-Tsan-King, a Life of Buddha. Oxford: Clarendon
Press (Sacred Books of the East, vol. ).
Chan, Timothy Wai Keung. . “Restoration of a Poetry Anthology by Wang Bo.”
Journal of the American Oriental Society , no.  (): -
Chen, Huaiyu. . e Revival of Buddhist Monasticism in Medieval China. New
York: Peter Lang.
Karetzky, Patricia Eichenbaum. . Early Buddhist Narrative Art: Illustrations of
the Life of the Buddha from Central Asia to China, Korea and Japan. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Lamotte, Etienne, tr. Sara Boin-Webb. . History of Indian Buddhism. Leuven:
Peeters.
Lancaster, Lewis R. and Sung Bae Park. . e Koryŏ Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lesbre, Emmanuelle. . “Une Vie illustrée du Buddha (Shishi yuanliu, ).” Arts
Asiatiques : -.
Lee, Sonya S. Surviving Nirvana: Death of the Buddha in Chinese Visual Culture. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press, .
Link, Arthur. . “Shih Seng-yu and his Writings.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society , no. : -.
Murray, Julia. . “e Evolution of Pictorial Hagiography in Chinese Art: Common emes and Forms.” Arts Asiatiques : -.

Note that Yi Suk-ki, who wrote the introduction to this work, also wrote an inscription for a
monk at Pŏpchu-sa, which belonged to the same tradition (Yogācāra) as nearby Kŭmsan-sa. See
Puggioni, ; for the spirit of penitence that marked this school, see Puggioni, -.

 –       ’ 
Olof, Allard. . “e Buddha’s Moon Reflected on a ousand Rivers.” IIAS
Newsletter : .
Powers, John. . A Bull of a Man. Images of Masculinity, Sex, and the Body in
Indian Buddhism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Puggioni, Tonino. . “e Yogacara-Faxiang Faith and the Korean Beopsang Tradition.” Seoul Journal of Korean Studies : -.
Sasse, Werner and Jung-hee An. . Der Mond gespiegelt in tausend Flüssen: Das
Leben des Buddha Gautama. Seoul: Sohaksa.
Silk, Jonathan. . “e Fruits of Paradox: On the Religious Architecture of the
Buddha’s Life Story.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion  no. : .
Strong, John. . e Buddha: A Short Biography. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
Waley, Arthur. -. “New Light on Buddhism in Medieval India.” Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques : -.
Zürcher, Erik. . e Buddhist Conquest of China. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
In Chinese and Korean
Ch’ae Sang-sik. . “Paengnyŏn-sa sŏngnip kwa sasangjŏk kyŏnghyang,” in Koryŏ
hugi Pulgyosa yŏn’gu. Seoul: Ilchogak, -.
Ch’oe Yŏn-sik. . “Chosŏn hugi Sŏk-ssi wŏllyu ŭi suyong kwa Pulgyogye e mich’in
yŏnghyang.” Kusan nonjip (May): -.
Chŏng Sŏng-u. . “Sŏkka yŏrae haengjŏk song yŏn’gu: Pulgyo t’onggi wa pigyo
hayŏ.” MA dissertation, Dongguk University.
He Lintian ed. . Chongding xinjiao Wang Zi’an ji. Taiyuan: Shanxi renmin
chubanshe.
Hŏ Hŭng-sik. . Koryŏ sidae Pulgyosa yŏn’gu. Seoul: Ilchogak.
Hŏ Hŭng-sik. . Koryŏ ro omgin Indo ŭi tŭngbul. Seoul: Ilchogak.
Hwang P’ae-gang. . “Sŏkka yŏrae haengjŏk song yŏn’gu.” In Han’guk Pulgyo
munhwa sasangsa (Yi Chi-gwan Festschri). Seoul: Kasan mun’go.
Sin Hyŏn-gyu. . “Pulgyo sŏsulsi ŭi maengnak yŏn’gu: Sŏkka yŏrae haengsil song
kwa Wŏrin ch’ŏngang chi kok ŭl chungsim ŭro.” Ǒmun nonjip : -.
Wang Bo. . Wang Zi’an ji. Taibei: Taiwan Shangwu yinshuguan.
Yi Pyŏng-uk. . “Unmuk ŭi Sŏkka yŏrae haengjŏk song e nat’anan hoet’ong
sasang yŏn’gu.” Pulgyohak yŏn’gu [inaugural issue]: -.
Yi Yŏng-ja. . “Mugi ŭi Ch’ŏnt’ae sasang: Sŏkka yŏrae haengjŏk song ŭl chungsim
ŭro.” Han’guk Pulgyohak : -.

Book Reviews
Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India. By Johannes
Bronkhorst (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section Two, India, Vol. ).
pp. xx, , Leiden and Boston, Brill, 
Professor Bronkhorst’s book is a valuable contribution that will stimulate debate
among scholars and students and encourage them to re-examine ideas about the
nature of early Indian culture that are oen taken for granted. However, not
all scholars will agree with his conclusions. Greater Magadha largely consists of
Bronkhorst’s arguments in favour of his belief that in early India the northwest
was the centre of a Vedic culture that was primarily concerned with ritual performance and magical thought and that this culture was distinct from and diametrically opposed to that of the northeast, Bronkhorst’s Greater Magadha, which was
primarily concerned with world renunciation and empirical thought. Bronkhorst
argues that Buddhism, Jainism and the śramana
. movements in general developed
out of the specific culture of Greater Magadha, as did the belief in karma and retribution, which subsequently entered mainstream Vedic culture. ere is not space
in this short review to address Bronkhorst’s arguments with the detailed response
that they deserve; its purpose is rather to present an overview of the strengths and
weaknesses of the book.
e reader of Greater Magadha would probably begin by wondering what was
the actual geographical extent of Greater Magadha and within what chronological
limits was its floruit. ese are questions that Bronkhorst does not address with
sufficient exactitude. For Bronkhorst the entire region east of the confluence of
Ganges and the Yamuna was Greater Magadha, and he states that “it serves no
purpose... to define exact limits for it”. Furthermore, as he admits, Greater Magadha is a term invented by himself and the name Mahāmagadha does not appear
to be found in ancient Indian literature. “Greater Magadha” is thus an artificial
 
construct, one that can be seen as a strategy which enables Bronkhorst to present
a wide range of disparate evidence in support of an hypothesis which is basically a
simple polarity. But without grounding in a historical context of time and place,
the evidence can do little to establish the central thesis.
A study that gave closer attention to geographical particularities and chronological change would doubtless reveal a more complex reality. It is certainly true
that the śramana
. ethic was transmitted through the expansion of Magadhan power
and prestige and that it received state support under the Mauryan empire, but
the śramana
. movements seem not to have originated within the borders of the
historic janapada of Magadha, since both the Buddha and Mahāvīra appear to
have spent their formative periods in countries whose centres were well to the
northwest of the historic janapada of Magadha. e most important of these
centres was probably Kosala, whose more westerly situation would have opened
it to Āryan culture at a period earlier than were the eastern janapadas, including
Magadha. Kosala seems to have become subject to Magadha during the lifetime
of the Buddha, but it could well have happened that Kosala capta ferum victorem
cepit  and that Kosalan culture, having initially developed as a result of an interaction between Vedic and non-Vedic cultures, was absorbed by Magadha and was
subsequently exported along with Magadhan power.
One feels that Bronkhorst’s simple hypothesis leads him to develop arguments
in its support that are in places too complex to be convincing. A central part of his
argument is that the teachings of the Buddha do not presuppose knowledge of the
Vedas and earliest Upanisads.
For example he argues, contra Richard Gombrich,
.
that the passages in the Pāli canon in which the Buddha appears to satirise the Rg
.
Vedic Hymn to the Cosmic Man, the purusa
. sūkta RV.x., do not preserve the
actual response of the Buddha to the social hierarchy that the hymn seeks to validate. Bronkhorst argues that the cosmic man was a well-known theme of Indian
mythology so it is not surprising that there are references to it in the Pāli; he seems
to be suggesting that the passages entered the canon at some late though unspecified date. A simpler explanation would be that the hymn was already well known
during the period of the Buddha’s life and that, as argued by Gombrich, the pas
Meaning “Captive Magadha took captive her wild conqueror”. I have adapted the Roman poet
Horace’s Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit (Epistulae II ). Horace was making the point that the
Roman conquest of Greece enabled Greek culture to spread throughout Rome. e same may have
been true of Magadha and Kosala.

 
sages preserve the Buddha’s characteristically satirical response to Brahmanical
claims.
One serious weakness of Greater Magadha is the lack of an adequate assessment of developments in material culture. One important development, which
must have had an impact on social relationships in ancient India, was the use of
coined money. Bronkhorst does not discuss the evidence provided by numismatics in his section on urbanization, even though coinage in India is a key example
of the adoption of a concept that originated outside Brahmanical culture. e
earliest Indian coins were produced in Kabul and Gandhāra in the early fourth
century  at a time when these regions were part of the Achaemenid empire,
and shortly aerwards coins were being produced in large quantities in the countries bordering the Ganges valley. ere is evidence to suggest that the earliest
coins of the eastern regions were produced in Kosala. Early Indian coins are now
known as punch-marked coins, since they are typically formed from pieces of
silver, scyphate or flat, cut from larger sheets, and usually bear from one to five
symbols, some of which clearly have a religious significance, stamped separately
onto one side of their surface. Punch-marked coins were being manufactured and
were circulating in the area Bronkhorst calls Greater Magadha perhaps no later
than twenty-five years aer the death of the Buddha. Coined money facilitates the
redistribution of wealth and it may be that one of its original purposes in India was
to enable kings to make payments to Brahmins in return for their performance
of Vedic sacrifices. Coined money also facilitated donations by merchants to the
Buddhist saṅgha, as is evidenced by visual representations from Buddhist monuments dating perhaps from the second century . Furthermore, an increased
production of coinage may well imply an increase in exchange transactions that
are not based on an asymmetrical hierarchal relationship between giver and receiver, but imply equality, since the participants’ relationship is oen temporary
and is determined solely by their willingness to give and accept money in the
form of coins. Money facilitates anonymous exchange and thus enables its possessor and receiver to enter into relationships that are based on choice rather than
on ascribed status. e growing availability of coined money may well have had
a profound influence on social relationships and cultural expression in ancient
India. No study of the culture of early India should ignore the potential of the

Richard Seaford has discussed these questions with regard to the Greek world in his Money and
the Early Greek Mind: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy, Cambridge; CUP, . I hope to join Professor
Seaford in a study of the significance of coined money for early Indian society.

 
evidence provided by numismatics.
Greater Magadha has its origins in papers previously published by Professor
Bronkhorst over a number of years, and the book’s subtitle, Studies in Early Indian
Culture, is an accurate description of its contents and structure. e emphasis of
the studies is primarily literary and there is little discussion of social and political
history. Bronkhorst demands fairly rigorous attention from his reader; his material is densely presented, and this reviewer felt that he could have provided more
signposts to enable the reader to follow his arguments. For instance, it would have
been useful to have a summary of the evidence at the end of the important section on chronology. Furthermore, the material in the eight appendices, which fill
ninety pages of text, could have been more closely integrated into the main body
of the book. Overall, Greater Magadha is a quarry to be mined rather than the
presentation of an argument to be followed. Bronkhorst’s knowledge of the literary sources is profound and his presentation of the literary evidence is exhaustive.
On almost every page there are ideas and suggestions that will stimulate debate
among scholars and students. e book has great strengths and if this review has
concentrated on some of its weaknesses this is by no means to detract from Professor Bronkhorst’s achievement. All those with an interest in early India should
own a copy of Greater Magadha, at least in its readily available e-version, if not in
its exorbitantly priced hard-copy version.
Richard Fynes
De Montfort University, Leicester
[email protected]

 
Anālayo: e Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal. (Hamburg Buddhist Studies .) Hamburg: Hamburg University Press. .  pp.,  figures
(i.e., b/w illustrations).
A
In this fairly short, handsomely produced book, Bhikkhu Anālayo examines
how the term and concept bodhisatta are used in the earliest sources. ese sources
he defines (uncontroversially) as “the discourses found in the four main Pāli Nikāyas,
together with material from the fih Nikāya that may reasonably be held to belong
to roughly the same textual stratum (Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka and Suttanipāta);” also such counterparts to these texts as have been preserved in Sanskrit,
Tibetan or (mostly) Chinese. (p.)
ere are three chapters. e first examines what the sources mean by the
term bodhisatta. e second discusses a Pāli sutta in which the former Buddha Kassapa meets the future Buddha Gotama, who thereupon becomes a monk,
but takes no vow to become a Buddha. e third presents the only case in these
texts in which a bodhisattva receives a prediction that he will succeed in fulfilling his vow to attain Buddhahood. e book makes fruitful use throughout of
Chinese and other parallel texts, showing how the concept familiar to us from
the Mahāyāna was built up by stages, perhaps over as long as several centuries
(though the chronology is not discussed).
Given how important the bodhisattva later became in Buddhism, it is astonishing that no one before has focussed so methodically on how the concept originated. Anālayo gives us his answers simply, clearly and convincingly. He also
presents his material in an intelligent way, which many would do well to emulate.
e main text, which is in clear large type, consists of everything essential to his
argument, but no more; it can (and should) be read by non-specialists in order
to learn about this important strand in the early development of Buddhism. is
main text probably has less than half the words in the book. e footnotes, on
the other hand, give all references both primary and secondary, and discuss side
issues, thus giving specialists everything they need in order to scrutinise and to
build on this work.
Both in content and in presentation I find the book entirely admirable, and
can only urge that it be read. I would like, however to use this context as an opportunity to present a couple of further observations of my own on the topic.

 
B
It may have irked readers that in the above lines I seem to oscillate between the
Sanskrit word bodhisattva and its Pali equivalent bodhisatta. e Sanskrit form
has become virtually a naturalised loan word in European languages and is the
obvious form to use when referring to Buddhism as a whole. However, it seems
sure that the term originated in Pali (or in a form of Middle Indo-Aryan very like
Pali) as bodhisatta, so that must be the appropriate form to use when discussing
the word’s origin. In general usage, a bodhisattva is a future Buddha, and to this
the Mahāyāna adds that it is a nobler goal than just attaining nirvana and freedom
from rebirth oneself, and that a bodhisattva is concerned primarily with helping
others to attain enlightenment; some forms of the Mahāyāna (I believe in the Far
Eastern tradition) even go so far as to teach that a bodhisattva refuses to attain
nirvana while unenlightened beings still exist. is contrasts, Anālayo shows,
with the bodhisatta in the early discourses. “Passages that reflect his motivation
indicate that Gautama’s chief concern was to find liberation for himself. His compassionate concern for others appears to have arisen only as a consequence of his
awakening, instead of having motivated his quest for liberation.” (p.).
What, then, did the term at first mean or refer to? In the Pali Nikāyas, Anālayo
tells us, it “is used predominantly by the Buddha Gotama to refer to his preawakening experiences, the time when he was ‘the bodhisattva’ par excellence.
Such usage occurs as part of a standard formulaic phrase, according to which
a particular event or reflection occurred ‘before (my) awakening, when still being an unawakened bodhisattva’, pubbe va (me) sambodhā anabhisambuddhassa
bodhisattass’ eva sato …” (p.).
Anālayo discusses the word bodhisatta in this passage at some length. Here
it refers only to Gotama himself, and Anālayo makes it overwhelmingly probable
that that was its earliest usage. But what exactly does it mean? A long footnote (fn.
, p.) is devoted to this question and the views of many scholars are adduced.
It seems that majority opinion has come round to accepting a view already found
(alongside others, of course) in the Pāli commentaries: that satta here is derived
from Sanskrit sakta, “attached”; so bodhisatta would mean “attached to enlightenment”. Some have objected that the Buddha, even before he became enlightened,
could not have been “attached” to anything, but I find this utterly unconvincing, a
typical example of the literalistic clinging to words which the Buddha condemns
in the Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN sutta ).

 
I have been strengthened in my skepticism by Anālayo himself. I had written to him on this topic: “I am reminded of many a conversation I have had with
pupils when introducing Buddhism. I say, ‘e Buddha tells us to achieve Enlightenment by not desiring anything.’ Usually someone objects: ‘But are you not then
desiring Enlightenment?’ I reply: ‘at’s OK. Get rid of all other desires first. en
you don’t have to get rid of the desire for Enlightenment, because that has taken
place automatically.’” Answering, Anālayo agreed: “Desire for the goal is a necessary requirement that through attaining its object dissolves itself.” He then, most
helpfully, drew my attention to Sutta-nipāta : nibbānapadābhipatthayāno
“longing for the state of nirvana”, and to SN V, -, where Ānanda explains
that it is through desire (chanda) that one conquers desire, because when one desires a goal and then achieves it, that desire naturally subsides. (So I have long
been following Ānanda without knowing it.)
So what about bodhisattass’ eva sato? I believe that eva should never be ignored in translation, though it is not possible to give an English word to which it
corresponds. It gives emphasis, which is easier to convey in spoken than in written English. (Some European languages are richer in suitable particles, such as
German ja and doch.) Colloquial English has “actually”, but “when I was actually
attached to Enlightenment” sounds too literal; “actually determined on” would be
better. In more formal English “in fact” sounds better than “actually”; so I offer
“when I was not Enlightened but in fact determined on Enlightenment.” Whether
or not exactly these words find favour, it is clear to me that it is anachronistic here
to translate bodhisatta as a noun; there was not yet any such category of living
being. Moreover, this interpretation of the phrase paves the way for the idea that
the bodhisatta has taken a vow to achieve Enlightenment.
To this positive conclusion let me append a further argument against the interpretation which led to the coinages bodhisattva and mahāsattva in Sanskrit.
Several meanings for sattva can be found in a Sanskrit lexicon. In both words,
tradition makes sattva bear the meaning “being”, usually “living being”, which
is common in Sanskrit, and the Pāli word satta derived from that is indeed also
common. But Pali has several homonyms satta, derived from different Sanskrit
words.
To call the Buddha some kind of “living being” does not sound particularly
complimentary. But the main argument against it derives not from decorum but
from linguistics. What kind of compound (samāsa) would bodhi-sattva be? How

is is for nibbānapadam
. abhipatthayāno, for metrical reasons.

 
would a commentator be able to analyse it in accord with Pāninian
grammar?
.
e only remotely plausible way I can think of would be to take it as a possessive
compound (bahubbīhi) and make sattva mean ”essence”, so that the whole would
mean ”he who has the essence of enlightenment”. But in Buddhism sattva/satta
never means “essence”.
On the other hand, Sanskrit mahā-sattva and Pāli mahā-satta are usually translated “great being”. I think this is wrong in a different way. is is a possessive compound, at least in origin. Here sattva has roughly the meaning given in
Monier-Williams’ Sanskrit Dictionary as ”strength of character”, corresponding to
Latin virtus and old English “virtue”; in modern English probably the best translation would be ”character”: ”of great character”.
All this must appear rather technical, but it has a wider interest. Anālayo has
traced for us the earliest stages in the evolution of the term bodhisatta/bodhisattva. His book falls short of showing the further developments it underwent
in the Mahāyāna. Even so, we have here a good example of how a term at the
very heart of Buddhist ideology radically changed its meaning and connotations
in the early centuries of Buddhist history, and at the heart of this development lay
a false back-formation from Pāli (or, if you like, Middle Indo-Aryan) to Sanskrit,
which greatly facilitated the word’s reinterpretation. As scholars know, but on
the whole the wider public does not, there are several other examples of such
reinterpretations of key terms, hard to date with any precision but probably arising
within a couple of centuries either side of the beginning of the Christian era. What
this amounts to, I suggest, is that there was a period in early Buddhism, maybe
a century or two aer Asoka, when the Buddhist tradition faltered intellectually,
perhaps because of a decline in institutional support. By faltering, I mean that
the meanings of some key words were forgotten and had to be somehow supplied
from what appeared to be their context, a context which itself was more and more
understood under the influence of certain trends elsewhere in India religion – in
Brahmanism/Hinduism. One can argue about the extent of the changes, but there
can at least be no argument about their direction when Middle Indo-Aryan was
replaced by Sanskrit – certainly not the opposite. is should give the historian
of Buddhism much food for thought.

 
C
e second part of Anālayo’s book focuses on the story found in the Ghatīkāra
.
Sutta in the Majjhima Nikāya, according to which Gotama in a former life met
the previous Buddha, Kassapa. is is a strange sutta in more ways than one. To
begin with, it is the only sutta which concerns a former life of Gotama and thus
resembles a Jātaka.
Here is the story in barest outline. In the time of Kassapa Buddha, two young
men, a brahmin and a potter, are friends. ey go bathing together. e potter
suggests to the brahmin that they go to call on Kassapa, but the latter refuses
rudely, using the kind of insulting terms to refer to Kassapa which are familiar
elsewhere in the Canon on the lips of brahmins. However, the potter refuses to
take no for an answer and ends up by using force in a way which would pollute
the Brahmin. “… [T]he young Brahmin finally agrees to come along and thereon
gets to hear a discourse from the Buddha Kāśyapa. On their way back home, the
young Brahmin expresses his wish to go forth. e potter brings him back to the
Buddha Kāśyapa, who at the request of the potter ordains the young Brahmin.”
(p.)
e rest of the story consists of an episode which has no direct connection
with what precedes. In Vārānasī,
Kassapa Buddha is visited by the local king and
.
preaches to him. e king invites Kassapa to stay for the rains retreat but the latter
refuses. When the king asks if he has another supporter who equals him, Kassapa
talks of the potter and tells of how the potter has helped him on other occasions.
e king decides to send food to the potter, but the potter declines. e story ends
here. e young Brahmin does not reappear.
In the Chinese counterpart to the Acchariyabbhutadhamma Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya, the future Gotama “took his initial vow to become a Buddha when
he was a monk under the Buddha Kāśyapa” (p.). ere is however no trace of
this in the Ghatīkāra
Sutta.
.
On the latter, Anālayo justly comments that “the potter is – from the perspective of the Buddha Kāśyapa – a superior lay supporter” to the king. “In fact,
throughout the discourse the potter is the main protagonist, exhibiting the exemplary conduct of an ideal lay disciple.”(p.) One might add that the very title of
the text (“e Potter Sutta”) signals that the potter is the protagonist.


Sutta , MN II, -.
MN sutta .

 
Anālayo spends several pages on a judicious analysis of the anomalies raised
by this sutta, and shows how some other texts set about dealing with them. is
is an exemplary illustration of how difficulties (i.e., inconsistencies) in a text lead
to a new development.
In my view, however, Anālayo has failed to say one crucial thing. It seems
to me extremely probable that the anomalies all arise from one simple fact: that
originally it was the young potter, not the young Brahmin, who was identified
with the future Gotama. Seen in this light, the caste theme appears as a familiar
one. e low-caste person, whose touch will pollute the Brahmin, disregards that
tabu and goes ahead in order to help to save his high-caste friend. He is not only
a better man than the king, but also than the Brahmin.
ough there are famous old stories based on this theme, such as the Mātaṅga
Jātaka, versions of which are found in both Buddhist and Jain literature, some
monk evidently found the idea of the future Buddha as a low-caste person too
much to stomach, and changed the identification. To appreciate how much trouble he caused, read Anālayo’s book.
Richard Gombrich
Emeritus Boden Professor of Sanskrit, University of Oxford
Acting Academic Director, OCBS
[email protected]

Jātaka . e story is well analysed by Justin Meiland in his unpublished Oxford D.Phil thesis
“Buddhist values in the Pāli Jātakas, with particular reference to the theme of renunciation”, ,
pp. ff. In fn., p., he writes: “Other stories in which the Bodhisatta is born as a can. dāla
include
.
the Satadhamma Jātaka (), Chavaka Jātaka (), Amba Jātaka () and Cittasambhūta Jātaka
().”

Uttarajjhayana
. Sutta . is is far shorter than the Jātaka but some of the verses are almost
the same.
